But, as expected, it didn’t take long for various interest groups that feel stung by the measure to make their views known, and that will likely make the lawmakers’ unity fleeting.

Even before the legislation was formally unveiled, one of the most powerful groups in conservative circles, Americans for Prosperity, warned that plans to slap a tax on imports from U.S. companies that move jobs abroad “has the potential to derail much-needed reform.”

That was followed by denunciations from the influential National Federation of Independent Business, a small business lobby; the National Association of Home Builders; Independent Sector, which represents charities; the National Farmers Union; and even the American Institute of Architects.

That will give lawmakers plenty to think about as they brace for lobbyists to descend on their offices to fight for and against parts of the bill that will affect their profits, charitable donations and public services.

But Thursday appeared to be all about rallying around what could be the only major legislative accomplishment Republicans have to take into the 2018 midterm elections.

Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said he didn’t hear enough concerns among members of his party when they were briefed on the plan to slow its momentum.

“I don’t think anyone voiced anything that was just overwhelmingly a shutdown concern, to my surprise,” Walker said. “Guys from different caucuses, from different groups, were all speaking in favor of it. Not everybody’s happy about everything but … I was actually a little taken aback at how much unity there was in the room at the overall package.”

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), head of the often balky Freedom Caucus, said he had some concerns about proposed changes to housing tax breaks and also with how the bill treats small businesses, but said he’s nevertheless “leaning yes” on the plan.

“I believe we’ll get there, and I’ll be optimistic that the few remaining issues will get addressed,” he said.

Lawmakers from high-tax states continued to grumble that the proposal would eliminate a deduction for state and local income and sales taxes, while keeping a property tax write-off that would be capped at $10,000.

“The property tax is still too low,” Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) told reporters, adding that he’s already made a personal plea to House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas). “I’ve done the math for my own state, my own district, and I’ve given the chairman of Ways and Means what I think the number needs to be.”

The unveiling of the 429-page bill — and a summary that runs 82 pages — kicks off what is sure to be a grueling slog to get legislation to President Donald Trump by the end of the year. The Senate is expected to follow up with its own plan as early as next week.

The bill would benefit a big slice of the American economy, with deep cuts in corporate tax rates, changes designed to make taxes on U.S. multinationals more competitive and tax cuts for individuals that Republicans say will significantly lighten their tax burden.

But it also includes provisions sure to stoke controversy and fierce lobbying, including new limits on the popular mortgage interest deduction. People could only deduct interest on the first $500,000 of loans for newly purchased homes, down from the current $1 million, and lawmakers would eliminate the break for second homes. The bill would also make it harder for people to sell their homes without paying taxes on any capital gains.

Experts warned that some middle-income people could see tax increases under the plan.

While big companies would get a significantly lower 20 percent corporate rate, down from 35 percent, they would face new limits on their ability to deduct interest on their loans, a new global minimum tax on their overseas earnings, and new taxes on U.S. companies heading abroad.

Republicans dropped a contentious plan to curb tax benefits for 401(k) retirement plans, which had GOP lawmakers cheering Brady at a closed door briefing on the plan.

Exactly who would win and lose in the proposal — dubbed the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” — has been a closely guarded secret, and many lawmakers will surely be surprised at the scope of changes needed to make the numbers behind the plan work.

The NFIB announced its opposition, citing restrictions lawmakers included on which small businesses can claim their lower tax rate on unincorporated “pass-through” firms. The issue has been one of the most difficult for lawmakers to work out, and could prove to be one of the most contentious going forward.

By BERNIE BECKER

Though lawmakers would reduce the rate on those businesses to 25 percent, there would be limits on which firms could take advantage, provisions designed to avoid gaming by wealthy individuals.

Under the proposal, pass-throughs would get the lower rate on 30 percent of their profits, with the remainder taxed at ordinary income tax rates, though there would be circumstances in which businesses could qualify for a bigger share being subject to the special rate. That means, though, that some pass-throughs would actually pay more than 25 percent under the plan.

“This bill leaves too many small businesses behind,” said Juanita Duggan, the group’s president. “We believe that tax reform should provide substantial relief to all small businesses.”

The National Association of Home Builders said the legislation “eviscerates” housing tax benefits, and “abandons middle class taxpayers.”

The National Association of Realtors meanwhile has already begun lobbying against the proposal, running online ads in tax writers’ districts. “Don’t let tax reform become a tax increase for middle-class homeowners,” the ad says.

Independent Sector worries charities would suffer because the bill’s expansion of the standard deduction means far fewer people would take an itemized deduction for charitable giving. “The bill moves in the wrong direction,” said Daniel Cardinali, the group’s president.

Other business groups embraced the plan, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable.

“This bold tax reform bill is exactly what our nation needs to get our economy growing faster,” said Neil Bradley, a senior vice president at the Chamber of Commerce. Said Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan Chase & Co. and the Business Roundtable: “We support this tax reform effort because it is good for all Americans.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan and his leadership team want to stay ahead of lobbyists and constituencies that they know will be at their door. They plan to create an interactive presentation for each member to show the bill’s economic impact on their district, and what different adjustments would do.

“The substantive issue is how all these changes add up for families in my district or other members’ districts,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), the Republican chief deputy whip. “And once people can see that then that will determine their level of support.”

The plan is Republicans’ top priority ahead of next year’s elections, and lawmakers are desperate for a victory to take to voters after the failed campaign to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans are hoping to move it quickly through the House, with committee action penciled in for next week. Lawmakers aim to forward it on to the Senate later this month. Senate Republicans are working on their own competing plan they aim to unveil next week. Lawmakers hope to land a compromise on Trump’s desk by the end of the year.

House leaders, who have written the plan in secret, had avoided identifying most of the breaks that would be quashed under the proposal in order to keep lobbyists at bay. But many Republicans had little inkling of what’s in the bill, and the strategy means leaders have not had much opportunity to build support among rank-and-file members for controversial proposals that will surely get more attention in the coming days.

The bill is loaded with sure-to-be contentious ideas affecting broad swathes of the economy. It would delete a long-standing deduction for people with high medical bills — including those with chronic conditions. People would have to live longer in their homes, under the bill, to qualify for tax-free treatment of capital gains when they sell their houses.

It would also kill long-standing breaks for adoptions, and for student loan interest costs. Private universities would face a new 1.4 percent tax on their investment earnings from their endowments. The Work Opportunity Credit, which encourages businesses to hire veterans, would be eliminated. So too would the New Markets Tax credit, which encourages investment in poor areas.

Tax benefits related to fringe benefits would be curtailed. It would also dump a long-standing break for casualty losses that allow people to deduct things lost in fires and storms, although it would continue to allow the provision for people hit by hurricanes — no doubt reflecting the influence of Brady, whose Houston-area district was hit by Hurricane Harvey.

Foreign companies operating in the United States would face higher taxes under the proposal, as would companies such as pharmaceutical firms that move overseas and want to sell goods back to the United States.

The bill would cut taxes over the next decade by $1.487 trillion, according to the official Joint Committee on Taxation. The estimate also shows the bill would likely run afoul of the Senate’s “Byrd rule,” named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), which bars provisions adding to the government’s long-term debt.

For individuals, the plan would reduce the number of tax brackets to four from the current seven, with the top rate remaining at 39.6 percent. Republicans would more than double the income threshold at which the top rate would kick in to $1 million for married couples. They would simultaneously raise taxes on the rich, though, by limiting their ability to take advantage of their lowest income tax bracket. The 35 percent bracket would begin at $260,000 for married couples, and the threshold for a 25 percent bracket would be $90,000 under the plan.

Republicans would also get rid of personal exemptions, which are designed to adjust tax burdens for family size.The plan would instead double the standard deduction while increasing both the size of the child tax credit to $1,600, from the current $1000, while increasing the income threshold at which it could be claimed. They would also create a new $300 credit for adult dependents as well as another $300 “family flexibility” credit.

The bill would ease the estate tax by doubling the threshold at which it would kick in before eventually repealing it.

Aside from the lower corporate tax rate, businesses would also get the ability to immediately write off their investment expenses for the next five years. They would get a one-time reduced rate of 12 percent on their overseas earnings on liquid assets and a 5 percent rate on illiquid assets like overseas factories.

But they would face new limits on their ability to deduct interest payments on the money they borrow. They would also face a new 10 percent foreign minimum tax targeting companies that squirrel away money in offshore tax havens. Life insurance companies would lose a number of tax benefits, private activity bonds would be eliminated and tax-exempt bonds could no longer be used to help build professional sports stadiums.

Colin Wilhelm,Rachael Bade and Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.

Leadership

The majority party members and the minority party members meet separately to select their leaders. Third parties rarely have had enough members to elect their own leadership, and independents will generally join one of the larger party organizations to receive committee assignments. A party caucus or conference is the name given to a meeting of or organization of all party members in the House. During these meetings, party members discuss matters of concern.

Rep. Paul D. Ryan

Elected by the whole of the House of Representatives, the Speaker acts as leader of the House and combines several roles: the institutional role of presiding officer and administrative head of the House, the role of leader of the majority party in the House, and the representative role of an elected member of the House. The Speaker of the House is second in line to succeed the President, after the Vice President.

Representative

Nancy Pelosi

Representative

James Clyburn

Representative

Steny Hoyer

The GOP’s hidden 46% tax bracket

If you’re rich enough, some of your income is taxed at a rate unseen since the ‘80s.

By DANNY VINIK

11/02/2017 06:07 PM EDT

House Republicans claim the tax plan they introduced Thursday keeps the top individual rate unchanged at 39.6 percent—the level at which it’s been capped for much of the past quarter-century. But a little-noticed provision effectively creates a new band in which income is taxed at over 45 percent.

Thanks to a quirky proposed surcharge, Americans who earn more than $1 million in taxable income would trigger an extra 6 percent tax on the next $200,000 they earn—a complicated change that effectively creates a new, unannounced tax bracket of 45.6 percent.

It hasn’t been advertised by Republicans, who have described their plan as maintaining the current top tax rate of 39.6 percent. And it goes against decades of GOP orthodoxy that raising taxes on the rich discourages work and reduces economic growth. Reached by phone, Steve Moore, a tax expert at The Heritage Foundation, said the surcharge was news to him. “I was just in a briefing with the White House on this,” he said. “They didn’t mention that. It seems kind of bizarre to me.”

The new rate stems from a provision in the bill intended to help the government recover, from the very wealthy, some of the benefits that lower-income taxpayers enjoy. Under the House GOP plan, all individuals—no matter whether they earn $35,000, $150,000 or $10 million—would pay the lowest rate, 12 percent, on their first $45,000 in taxable income. That’s a normal feature of current American tax law. But in the new plan, House Republicans want to claw back some of that benefit for individuals who earn more than $1 million, or couples earning more than $1.2 million.

Here’s how it would work: After the first $1 million in taxable income, the government would impose a 6 percent surcharge on every dollar earned, until it made up for the tax benefits that the rich receive from the low tax rate on that first $45,000. That surcharge remains until the government has clawed back the full $12,420, which would occur at about $1.2 million in taxable income. At that point, the surcharge disappears and the top tax rate drops back to 39.6 percent. This type of tax is sometimes called a “bubble tax,” because the marginal tax rate effectively bubbles up for a brief period before falling back to a lower level.

According to POLITICO’s calculation, the surcharge could raise more than $50 billion over a decade—money that will help the GOP meet the $1.5 trillion in increased deficits that their budget allows for and required to balance out tax cuts elsewhere. Balancing out those costs means that the bill can pass through budget reconciliation, andSenate Democrats can’t filibuster the bill.

Whom would it affect? According to the Internal Revenue Service, 438,000 tax filers had more than $1 million in taxable income in 2015, most of whom also make more than $1.2 million—meaning they’d pay the full additional $12,420 in bubble tax. Altogether, that surcharge could have raised roughly $5 billion in 2015, the latest year in which numbers are available, meaning it could potentially bring in around $50 billion over the next decade. That’s not huge money in a plan that cuts taxes $1.5 trillion—but every bit counts.

A spokesperson for the House Ways and Means Committee did not dispute the math but characterized the bubble as “the phase-out of a tax benefit” for high earners, rather than a surcharge. “The Tax Cuts and Jobs Actprovides tax relief at every income level,” said the spokesperson.

The idea of a bubble tax is not exactly new. In fact, the corporate tax code currently contains a bubble tax, which the GOP plan would eliminate. But the hidden nature of bubble taxes concerns experts who believe that the tax code should be easy to understand. “It certainly doesn’t promote tax transparency in terms of letting people readily understand the true rate structure,” said Alan Viard, a tax expert at the American Enterprise Institute. “I don’t think many people in the tax policy community are enthused about this kind of provision.”

The bubble tax also represents something of a break from nearly all Republican tax plans for the past few decades. Supply-side conservatives have long complained that the current tax rates on top earnersare too high, discouraging work and reducing economic growth. House Republicans proposed lowering the top rate to 33 percent in the tax blueprint that they released last year. Over the past few weeks, faced with pressure from President Donald Trump to counter critics who said the plan is a giveaway to the rich and needing additional revenue, GOP leaders acceded to leaving the top rate unchanged. For a party that has focused intently on lowering marginal tax rates, it was a big concession.

Through the bubble tax, though, House Republicans quietly went a step further. The change could anger conservatives who dislike higher tax rates and weren’t expecting Republicans to include a bubble tax in their plan. After POLITICO explained the idea further to Moore, he said it was a “stupid policy” that goes against supply side theory. “All the benefits from rate reductions are from cutting the highest rate not the lowest rates,” he added.

For Democrats, the extra $50 billion from the rich is almost certain not to change their criticisms that the plan contains huge giveaways to the rich in the form of corporate tax cuts and the new 25 percent rate for so-called “pass through” businesses, which include everything from small businesses to hedge funds.

The bubble tax, in other words, is a way for the GOP to quietly raise much-needed revenue without changing the broader features of the bill. But it does mean that the top marginal tax rate would rise above 40 percent for the first time since 1986—the last year that Congress overhauled the tax code.

Rand Paul: Have to Cut Taxes on Top 1 Percent or It’s Not a ‘Significant Tax Cut’

The Kentucky senator says members of Congress have bought into the ‘class warfare’ of the Left

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Thursday on “The Laura Ingraham Show” that the House’s tax plan will deliver economic growth, although it doesn’t really constitute “a significant tax cut” as President Donald Trump said it would.

The House’s watered-down Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, released Thursday, would reduce the number of income tax brackets to four, with rates of zero percent, 12 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent. In addition, the corporate tax rate drops from 35 percent to 20 percent — short of the 15 percent tax rate Trump championed on the campaign trail, but still a significant change.

Although Paul applauded some aspects of the bill’s content, he expressed disappointment, saying the proposed legislation as it now stands wouldn’t deliver the “significant tax cut” Trump and Republicans promised.

“So at the top, there’s not going to be much of a tax cut. There will be some. And in the middle, there’s going to be a little bit — there’s mostly going to be eliminating deductions. And at the bottom, the bottom already don’t pay much income tax and will continue not to pay much income tax,” Paul added.

The senator from Kentucky said that if the U.S. wants to create jobs and keep them in the country, Congress must “lessen the punishment” it has doled out on corporations and the top 1 percent of income earners.

“We’re punishing corporations and the workers of those corporations so much that companies are fleeing and going abroad. So we have the highest corporate income tax in the world. It’s going down to 20 percent,” Paul said. “The president’s been a good leader on this. He has pushed up until the last minute of the last hour last night. House leadership is still trying to not give him the corporate tax cut he’s asked for.”

Even though the bill would only lower the corporate tax rate to 20 percent, Paul said this move still would “be huge” for the country.

“The best news out of this is, lowering the corporate rate will help the country. And I think we will see growth,” Paul said. “Already we’re seeing about 3 percent growth in the country because of the enthusiasm for President Trump and his policies. I think we’re going to get 4 or 5 percent growth if we get this thing through, within a year or two.”

“For the individuals, it’s not as good as I would like. I would like to see every individual up and down get a lower rate, and particularly on the top part of the spectrum because the top part of the spectrum pays most of the taxes,” Paul continued.

But the Democrats have been particularly effective in pushing the narrative that tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans disadvantage poorer Americans, and many Republicans have found themselves convinced by portions of these emotional arguments, Paul suggested.

“We have to understand that the owners of our businesses — the people we work for — are richer than us. They pay more taxes,” Paul said. “But if you lower their taxes, they will either buy stuff or hire more people. If you raise their taxes, it goes into the nonproductive economy, which is Washington, D.C., and it will be squandered.”

“So really, even if rich people get a tax cut, we should all stand up and cheer because it means more jobs for us because you’re leaving more money in the private sector,” Paul continued. “So I’m one of the few that will stand up on TV and say everybody’s taxes should go down, including the wealthy.”

The Communist Manifesto (originally Manifesto of the Communist Party) is an 1848 political pamphlet by German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Commissioned by the Communist League and originally published in London (in German as Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei) just as the revolutions of 1848 began to erupt, the Manifesto was later recognised as one of the world’s most influential political documents. It presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and then-present) and the problems of capitalism and the capitalist mode of production, rather than a prediction of communism’s potential future forms.

The Communist Manifesto summarises Marx and Engels’ theories about the nature of society and politics, that in their own words, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. It also briefly features their ideas for how the capitalist society of the time would eventually be replaced by socialism.

Synopsis

The Communist Manifesto is divided into a preamble and four sections, the last of these a short conclusion. The introduction begins by proclaiming “A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre”. Pointing out that parties everywhere—including those in government and those in the opposition—have flung the “branding reproach of communism” at each other, the authors infer from this that the powers-that-be acknowledge communism to be a power in itself. Subsequently, the introduction exhorts Communists to openly publish their views and aims, to “meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself”.

The first section of the Manifesto, “Bourgeois and Proletarians”, elucidates the materialist conception of history, that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. Societies have always taken the form of an oppressed majority living under the thumb of an oppressive minority. In capitalism, the industrial working class, or proletariat, engage in class struggle against the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie. As before, this struggle will end in a revolution that restructures society, or the “common ruin of the contending classes”. The bourgeoisie, through the “constant revolutionising of production [and] uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions” have emerged as the supreme class in society, displacing all the old powers of feudalism. The bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its labour power, creating profit for themselves and accumulating capital. However, in doing so, the bourgeoisie serves as “its own grave-diggers”; the proletariat inevitably will become conscious of their own potential and rise to power through revolution, overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

“Proletarians and Communists”, the second section, starts by stating the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class. The communists’ party will not oppose other working-class parties, but unlike them, it will express the general will and defend the common interests of the world’s proletariat as a whole, independent of all nationalities. The section goes on to defend communism from various objections, including claims that it advocates “free love” or disincentivises people from working. The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands—among them a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; free public education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank; expansion of publicly owned etc.—the implementation of which would result in the precursor to a stateless and classless society.

The third section, “Socialist and Communist Literature”, distinguishes communism from other socialist doctrines prevalent at the time—these being broadly categorised as Reactionary Socialism; Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism; and Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. While the degree of reproach toward rival perspectives varies, all are dismissed for advocating reformism and failing to recognise the pre-eminent revolutionary role of the working class. “Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties”, the concluding section of the Manifesto, briefly discusses the communist position on struggles in specific countries in the mid-nineteenth century such as France, Switzerland, Poland, and Germany, this last being “on the eve of a bourgeois revolution”, and predicts that a world revolution will soon follow. It ends by declaring an alliance with the social democrats, boldly supporting other communist revolutions, and calling for united international proletarian action—Working Men of All Countries, Unite!.

Writing

Only surviving page from the first draft of the Manifesto, handwritten by Marx

In spring 1847 Marx and Engels joined the League of the Just, who were quickly convinced by the duo’s ideas of “critical communism”. At its First Congress in 2–9 June, the League tasked Engels with drafting a “profession of faith”, but such a document was later deemed inappropriate for an open, non-confrontational organisation. Engels nevertheless wrote the “Draft of the Communist Confession of Faith“, detailing the League’s programme. A few months later, in October, Engels arrived at the League’s Paris branch to find that Moses Hess had written an inadequate manifesto for the group, now called the League of Communists. In Hess’s absence, Engels severely criticised this manifesto, and convinced the rest of the League to entrust him with drafting a new one. This became the draft Principles of Communism, described as “less of a credo and more of an exam paper.”

On 23 November, just before the Communist League’s Second Congress (29 November – 8 December 1847), Engels wrote to Marx, expressing his desire to eschew the catechism format in favour of the manifesto, because he felt it “must contain some history.” On the 28th, Marx and Engels met at Ostend in Belgium, and a few days later, gathered at the Soho, London headquarters of the German Workers’ Education Association to attend the Congress. Over the next ten days, intense debate raged between League functionaries; Marx eventually dominated the others and, overcoming “stiff and prolonged opposition”,[1] in Harold Laski‘s words, secured a majority for his programme. The League thus unanimously adopted a far more combative resolution than that at the First Congress in June. Marx (especially) and Engels were subsequently commissioned to draw up a manifesto for the League.

Upon returning to Brussels, Marx engaged in “ceaseless procrastination”, according to his biographer Francis Wheen. Working only intermittently on the manifesto, he spent much of his time delivering lectures on political economy at the German Workers’ Education Association, writing articles for the Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung, and giving a long speech on free trade. Following this, he even spent a week (17–26 January 1848) in Ghent to establish a branch of the Democratic Association there. Subsequently, having not heard from Marx for nearly two months, the Central Committee of the Communist League sent him an ultimatum on 24 or 26 January, demanding he submit the completed manuscript by 1 February. This imposition spurred Marx on, who struggled to work without a deadline, and he seems to have rushed to finish the job in time. (For evidence of this, historian Eric Hobsbawm points to the absence of rough drafts, only one page of which survives.)

In all, the Manifesto was written over 6–7 weeks. Although Engels is credited as co-writer, the final draft was penned exclusively by Marx. From the 26 January letter, Laski infers that even the League considered Marx to be the sole draftsman (and that he was merely their agent, imminently replaceable). Further, Engels himself wrote in 1883 that “The basic thought running through the Manifesto … belongs solely and exclusively to Marx.” Although Laski doesn’t disagree, he suggests that Engels underplays his own contribution with characteristic modesty, and points out the “close resemblance between its substance and that of the [Principles of Communism]”. Laski argues that while writing the Manifesto, Marx drew from the “joint stock of ideas” he developed with Engels, “a kind of intellectual bank account upon which either could draw freely.”[2]

Publication

Initial publication and obscurity, 1848–72

In late February 1848, the Manifesto was anonymously published by the Workers’ Educational Association (Communistischer Arbeiterbildungsverein) at Bishopsgate in the City of London. Written in German, the 23-page pamphlet was titled Manifest der kommunistischen Partei and had a dark-green cover. It was reprinted three times and serialised in the Deutsche Londoner Zeitung, a newspaper for German émigrés. On 4 March, one day after the serialisation in the Zeitung began, Marx was expelled by Belgian police. Two weeks later, around 20 March, a thousand copies of the Manifesto reached Paris, and from there to Germany in early April. In April–May the text was corrected for printing and punctuation mistakes; Marx and Engels would use this 30-page version as the basis for future editions of the Manifesto.

Although the Manifesto‘s prelude announced that it was “to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages”, the initial printings were only in German. Polish and Danish translations soon followed the German original in London, and by the end of 1848, a Swedish translation was published with a new title—The Voice of Communism: Declaration of the Communist Party. In June–November 1850 the Manifesto of the Communist Party was published in English for the first time when George Julian Harney serialised Helen Macfarlane‘s translation in his Chartist magazine The Red Republican. (Her version begins, “A frightful hobgoblin stalks throughout Europe. We are haunted by a ghost, the ghost of Communism.”)[3] For her translation, the Lancashire-based Macfarlane probably consulted Engels, who had abandoned his own English translation half way. Harney’s introduction revealed the Manifesto‘s hitherto-anonymous authors’ identities for the first time.

Immediately after the Cologne Communist Trial of late 1852, the Communist League disbanded itself.

Soon after the Manifesto was published, Paris erupted in revolution to overthrow King Louis Philippe. The Manifesto played no role in this; a French translation was not published in Paris until just before the working-class June Days Uprising was crushed. Its influence in the Europe-wide revolutions of 1848 was restricted to Germany, where the Cologne-based Communist League and its newspaper Neue Rheinische Zeitung, edited by Marx, played an important role. Within a year of its establishment, in May 1849, the Zeitung was suppressed; Marx was expelled from Germany and had to seek lifelong refuge in London. In 1851, members of the Communist League’s central board were arrested by the Prussian police. At their trial in Cologne 18 months later in late 1852 they were sentenced to 3–6 years’ imprisonment. For Engels, the revolution was “forced into the background by the reaction that began with the defeat of the Paris workers in June 1848, and was finally excommunicated ‘by law’ in the conviction of the Cologne Communists in November 1852”.

After the defeat of the 1848 revolutions the Manifesto fell into obscurity, where it remained throughout the 1850s and 1860s. Hobsbawm says that by November 1850 the Manifesto “had become sufficiently scarce for Marx to think it worth reprinting section III … in the last issue of his [short-lived] London magazine”. Over the next two decades only a few new editions were published; these include an (unauthorised and occasionally inaccurate) 1869 Russian translation by Mikhail Bakunin in Geneva and a 1866 edition in Berlin—the first time the Manifesto was published in Germany. According to Hobsbawm, “By the middle 1860s virtually nothing that Marx had written in the past was any longer in print.” However John Cowell-Stepney did publish an abridged version in the Social Economist in August/September 1869,[4] in time for the Basle Congress.

Rise, 1872–1917

In the early 1870s, the Manifesto and its authors experienced a revival in fortunes. Hobsbawm identifies three reasons for this. The first is the leadership role Marx played in the International Workingmen’s Association (aka the First International). Secondly, Marx also came into much prominence among socialists—and equal notoriety among the authorities—for his support of the Paris Commune of 1871, elucidated in The Civil War in France. Lastly, and perhaps most significantly in the popularisation of the Manifesto, was the treason trial of German Social Democratic Party (SPD) leaders. During the trial prosecutors read the Manifesto out loud as evidence; this meant that the pamphlet could legally be published in Germany. Thus in 1872 Marx and Engels rushed out a new German-language edition, writing a preface that identified that several portions that became outdated in the quarter century since its original publication. This edition was also the first time the title was shortened to The Communist Manifesto (Das Kommunistische Manifest), and it became the bedrock the authors based future editions upon. Between 1871 and 1873, the Manifesto was published in over nine editions in six languages; in 1872 it was published in the United States for the first time, serialised in Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly of New York City. However, by the mid 1870s the Communist Manifesto remained Marx and Engels’ only work to be even moderately well-known.

Over the next forty years, as social-democratic parties rose across Europe and parts of the world, so did the publication of the Manifesto alongside them, in hundreds of editions in thirty languages. Marx and Engels wrote a new preface for the 1882 Russian edition, translated by Georgi Plekhanov in Geneva. In it they wondered if Russia could directly become a communist society, or if she would become capitalist first like other European countries. After Marx’s death in 1883, Engels alone provided the prefaces for five editions between 1888 and 1893. Among these is the 1888 English edition, translated by Samuel Moore and approved by Engels, who also provided notes throughout the text. It has been the standard English-language edition ever since.

The principal region of its influence, in terms of editions published, was in the “central belt of Europe”, from Russia in the east to France in the west. In comparison, the pamphlet had little impact on politics in southwest and southeast Europe, and moderate presence in the north. Outside Europe, Chinese and Japanese translations were published, as were Spanish editions in Latin America. This uneven geographical spread in the Manifesto‘s popularity reflected the development of socialist movements in a particular region as well as the popularity of Marxist variety of socialism there. There was not always a strong correlation between a social-democratic party’s strength and the Manifesto‘s popularity in that country. For instance, the German SPD printed only a few thousand copies of the Communist Manifesto every year, but a few hundred thousand copies of the Erfurt Programme. Further, the mass-based social-democratic parties of the Second International did not require their rank and file to be well-versed in theory; Marxist works such as the Manifesto or Das Kapital were read primarily by party theoreticians. On the other hand, small, dedicated militant parties and Marxist sects in the West took pride in knowing the theory; Hobsbawm says “This was the milieu in which ‘the clearness of a comrade could be gauged invariably from the number of earmarks on his Manifesto'”.

Ubiquity, 1917–present

The Bolshevik (1920) by Boris Kustodiev.Following the 1917 Bolshevik takeover of Russia Marx/Engels classics like the Communist Manifesto were distributed far and wide.

Therefore the widespread dissemination of Marx and Engels’ works became an important policy objective; backed by a sovereign state, the CPSU had relatively inexhaustible resources for this purpose. Works by Marx, Engels, and Lenin were published on a very large scale, and cheap editions of their works were available in several languages across the world. These publications were either shorter writings or they were compendia such as the various editions of Marx and Engels’ Selected Works, or their Collected Works. This affected the destiny of the Manifesto in several ways. Firstly, in terms of circulation; in 1932 the American and British Communist Parties printed several hundred thousand copies of a cheap edition for “probably the largest mass edition ever issued in English”. Secondly the work entered political-science syllabuses in universities, which would only expand after the Second World War. For its centenary in 1948, its publication was no longer the exclusive domain of Marxists and academicians; general publishers too printed the Manifesto in large numbers. “In short, it was no longer only a classic Marxist document,” Hobsbawm noted, “it had become a political classic tout court.”

Even after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc in the 1990s, the Communist Manifesto remains ubiquitous; Hobsbawm says that “In states without censorship, almost certainly anyone within reach of a good bookshop, and certainly anyone within reach of a good library, not to mention the internet, can have access to it.” The 150th anniversary once again brought a deluge of attention in the press and the academia, as well as new editions of the book fronted by introductions to the text by academics. One of these, The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition by Verso, was touted by a critic in the London Review of Books as being a “stylish red-ribboned edition of the work. It is designed as a sweet keepsake, an exquisite collector’s item. In Manhattan, a prominent Fifth Avenue store put copies of this choice new edition in the hands of shop-window mannequins, displayed in come-hither poses and fashionable décolletage.”

Legacy

“With the clarity and brilliance of genius, this work outlines a new world-conception, consistent materialism, which also embraces the realm of social life; dialectics, as the most comprehensive and profound doctrine of development; the theory of the class struggle and of the world-historic revolutionary role of the proletariat—the creator of a new, communist society.”

A number of late-20th- and 21st-century writers have commented on the Communist Manifesto‘s continuing relevance. In a special issue of the Socialist Register commemorating the Manifesto‘s 150th anniversary, Peter Osborne argued that it was ‘the single most influential text written in the nineteenth century.’[6] Academic John Raines in 2002 noted that “In our day this Capitalist Revolution has reached the farthest corners of the earth. The tool of money has produced the miracle of the new global market and the ubiquitous shopping mall. Read The Communist Manifesto, written more than one hundred and fifty years ago, and you will discover that Marx foresaw it all.”[7] In 2003, the English Marxist Chris Harman stated, “There is still a compulsive quality to its prose as it provides insight after insight into the society in which we live, where it comes from and where its going to. It is still able to explain, as mainstream economists and sociologists cannot, today’s world of recurrent wars and repeated economic crisis, of hunger for hundreds of millions on the one hand and ‘overproduction’ on the other. There are passages that could have come from the most recent writings on globalisation.”[8]Alex Callinicos, editor of International Socialism, stated in 2010 that “This is indeed a manifesto for the 21st century.”[9] Writing in The London Evening Standard in 2012, Andrew Neather cited Verso Books‘ 2012 re-edition of The Communist Manifesto, with an introduction by Eric Hobsbawm, as part of a resurgence of left-wing-themed ideas which includes the publication of Owen Jones‘ best-selling Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class and Jason Barker‘s documentary Marx Reloaded.[10]

Soviet Union stamp commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Manifesto

In contrast, critics such as Revisionist Marxist and reformist socialist Eduard Bernstein distinguished between “immature” early Marxism—as exemplified by the Communist Manifestowritten by Marx and Engels in their youth—that he opposed for its violent Blanquist tendencies, and later “mature” Marxism that he supported.[11] This latter form refers to Marx in his later life acknowledging that socialism could be achieved through peaceful means through legislative reform in democratic societies.[12] Bernstein declared that the massive and homogeneous working-class claimed in the Communist Manifestodid not exist, and that contrary to claims of a proletarian majority emerging, the middle-class was growing under capitalism and not disappearing as Marx had claimed. Bernstein noted that the working-class was not homogeneous but heterogeneous, with divisions and factions within it, including socialist and non-socialist trade unions. Marx himself, later in his life, acknowledged that the middle-class was not disappearing in his work Theories of Surplus Value (1863). The obscurity of the later work means that Marx’s acknowledgement of this error is not well known.[13]George Boyer described the Manifesto as “very much a period piece, a document of what was called the ‘hungry’ 1840s.”[14]

Many have drawn attention to the passage in the Manifesto that seems to sneer at the stupidity of the rustic: “The bourgeoisie … draws all nations … into civilisation … It has created enormous cities … and thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy [sic!] of rural life”.[15] As Eric Hobsbawm noted, however:

[W]hile there is no doubt that Marx at this time shared the usual townsman’s contempt for, as well as ignorance of, the peasant milieu, the actual and analytically more interesting German phrase (“dem Idiotismus des Landlebens entrissen”) referred not to “stupidity” but to “the narrow horizons”, or “the isolation from the wider society” in which people in the countryside lived. It echoed the original meaning of the Greek term idiotes from which the current meaning of “idiot” or “idiocy” is derived, namely “a person concerned only with his own private affairs and not with those of the wider community”. In the course of the decades since the 1840s, and in movements whose members, unlike Marx, were not classically educated, the original sense was lost and was misread.[16]

Influences on The Communist Manifesto

Marx and Engel’s political influences were wide-ranging, reacting to and taking inspiration from German idealist philosophy, French socialism, and English and Scottish political economy. The Communist Manifesto also takes influence from literature. In Jacques Derrida’s work, Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International, he uses Shakespeare’s Hamlet to frame a discussion of the history of the International, showing, in the process, the influence that Shakespeare’s work had on Marx and Engel’s writing.[17] In his essay, “Big Leagues: Specters of Milton and Republican International Justice between Shakespeare and Marx,” Christopher N. Warren makes the case that English poet John Milton also had a substantial influence on Marx and Engel’s work.[18]Historians of 19th-century reading habits have confirmed that Marx and Engels would have read these authors, and it is known that Marx loved Shakespeare, in particular.[19][20][21] Milton, Warren argues, also shows a notable influence on The Communist Manifesto: “Looking back on Milton’s era, Marx saw a historical dialectic founded on inspiration in which freedom of the press, republicanism, and revolution were closely joined.”[22] Milton’s republicanism, Warren continues, served as “a useful, in unlikely, bridge” as Marx and Engels sought to forge a revolutionary international coalition.

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update

The Internal Revenue Service has recently released new data on individual income taxes for calendar year 2014, showing the number of taxpayers, adjusted gross income, and income tax shares by income percentiles.[1]

The data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax continues to be very progressive, borne mainly by the highest income earners.

In 2014, 139.6 million taxpayers reported earning $9.71 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.37 trillion in individual income taxes.

The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose to 20.6 percent in 2014. Their share of federal individual income taxes also rose, to 39.5 percent.

In 2014, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.3 percent of all individual income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.7 percent.

The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 27.1 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.5 percent).

Reported Income and Taxes Paid Both Increased Significantly in 2014

Taxpayers reported $9.71 trillion in adjusted gross income (AGI) on 139.5 million tax returns in 2014. Total AGI grew by $675 billion from the previous year’s levels. There were 1.2 million more returns filed in 2014 than in 2013, meaning that average AGI rose by $4,252 per return, or 6.5 percent.

Meanwhile, taxpayers paid $1.37 trillion in individual income taxes in 2014, an 11.5 percent increase from taxes paid in the previous year. The average individual income tax rate for all taxpayers rose from 13.64 percent to 14.16 percent. Moreover, the average tax rate increased for all income groups, except for the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers, whose average rate decreased from 27.91 percent to 27.67 percent.

The most likely explanation behind the higher tax rates in 2014 is a phenomenon known as “real bracket creep.” [2] As incomes rise, households are pushed into higher tax brackets, and are subject to higher overall tax rates on their income. On the other hand, the likely reason why the top 0.1 percent of households saw a slightly lower tax rate in 2014 is because a higher portion of their income consisted of long-term capital gains, which are subject to lower tax rates.[3]

The share of income earned by the top 1 percent rose to 20.58 percent of total AGI, up from 19.04 percent in 2013. The share of the income tax burden for the top 1 percent also rose, from 37.80 percent in 2013 to 39.48 percent in 2014.

Top 1%

Top 5%

Top 10%

Top 25%

Top 50%

Bottom 50%

All Taxpayers

Table 1. Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2014

Number of Returns

1,395,620

6,978,102

13,956,203

34,890,509

69,781,017

69,781,017

139,562,034

Adjusted Gross Income ($ millions)

$1,997,819

$3,490,867

$4,583,416

$6,690,287

$8,614,544

$1,094,119

$9,708,663

Share of Total Adjusted Gross Income

20.58%

35.96%

47.21%

68.91%

88.73%

11.27%

100.00%

Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)

$542,640

$824,153

$974,124

$1,192,679

$1,336,637

$37,740

$1,374,379

Share of Total Income Taxes Paid

39.48%

59.97%

70.88%

86.78%

97.25%

2.75%

100.00%

Income Split Point

$465,626

$188,996

$133,445

$77,714

$38,173

Average Tax Rate

27.16%

23.61%

21.25%

17.83%

15.52%

3.45%

14.16%

Note: Does not include dependent filers

High-Income Americans Paid the Majority of Federal Taxes

In 2014, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (those with AGIs below $38,173) earned 11.27 percent of total AGI. This group of taxpayers paid approximately $38 billion in taxes, or 2.75 percent of all income taxes in 2014.

In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs of $465,626 and above) earned 20.58 percent of all AGI in 2014, but paid 39.48 percent of all federal income taxes.

In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $543 billion, or 39.48 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $400 billion, or 29.12 percent of all income taxes.

Figure 1.

High-Income Taxpayers Pay the Highest Average Tax Rates

The 2014 IRS data shows that taxpayers with higher incomes pay much higher average individual income tax rates than lower-income taxpayers.[4]

The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs below $38,173) faced an average income tax rate of 3.45 percent. As household income increases, the IRS data shows that average income tax rates rise. For example, taxpayers with AGIs between the 10th and 5th percentile ($133,445 and $188,996) pay an average rate of 13.7 percent – almost four times the rate paid by those in the bottom 50 percent.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI of $465,626 and above) paid the highest effective income tax rate, at 27.2 percent, 7.9 times the rate faced by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers.

Figure 2.

Taxpayers at the very top of the income distribution, the top 0.1 percent (with AGIs over $2.14 million), paid an even higher average tax rate, of 27.7 percent.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

1987

106,155

1,062

5,308

5,308

10,615

15,923

26,539

26,539

53,077

53,077

1988

108,873

1,089

5,444

5,444

10,887

16,331

27,218

27,218

54,436

54,436

1989

111,313

1,113

5,566

5,566

11,131

16,697

27,828

27,828

55,656

55,656

1990

112,812

1,128

5,641

5,641

11,281

16,922

28,203

28,203

56,406

56,406

1991

113,804

1,138

5,690

5,690

11,380

17,071

28,451

28,451

56,902

56,902

1992

112,653

1,127

5,633

5,633

11,265

16,898

28,163

28,163

56,326

56,326

1993

113,681

1,137

5,684

5,684

11,368

17,052

28,420

28,420

56,841

56,841

1994

114,990

1,150

5,749

5,749

11,499

17,248

28,747

28,747

57,495

57,495

1995

117,274

1,173

5,864

5,864

11,727

17,591

29,319

29,319

58,637

58,637

1996

119,442

1,194

5,972

5,972

11,944

17,916

29,860

29,860

59,721

59,721

1997

121,503

1,215

6,075

6,075

12,150

18,225

30,376

30,376

60,752

60,752

1998

123,776

1,238

6,189

6,189

12,378

18,566

30,944

30,944

61,888

61,888

1999

126,009

1,260

6,300

6,300

12,601

18,901

31,502

31,502

63,004

63,004

2000

128,227

1,282

6,411

6,411

12,823

19,234

32,057

32,057

64,114

64,114

The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

2001

119,371

119

1,194

5,969

5,969

11,937

17,906

29,843

29,843

59,685

59,685

2002

119,851

120

1,199

5,993

5,993

11,985

17,978

29,963

29,963

59,925

59,925

2003

120,759

121

1,208

6,038

6,038

12,076

18,114

30,190

30,190

60,379

60,379

2004

122,510

123

1,225

6,125

6,125

12,251

18,376

30,627

30,627

61,255

61,255

2005

124,673

125

1,247

6,234

6,234

12,467

18,701

31,168

31,168

62,337

62,337

2006

128,441

128

1,284

6,422

6,422

12,844

19,266

32,110

32,110

64,221

64,221

2007

132,655

133

1,327

6,633

6,633

13,265

19,898

33,164

33,164

66,327

66,327

2008

132,892

133

1,329

6,645

6,645

13,289

19,934

33,223

33,223

66,446

66,446

2009

132,620

133

1,326

6,631

6,631

13,262

19,893

33,155

33,155

66,310

66,310

2010

135,033

135

1,350

6,752

6,752

13,503

20,255

33,758

33,758

67,517

67,517

2011

136,586

137

1,366

6,829

6,829

13,659

20,488

34,146

34,146

68,293

68,293

2012

136,080

136

1,361

6,804

6,804

13,608

20,412

34,020

34,020

68,040

68,040

2013

138,313

138

1,383

6,916

6,916

13,831

20,747

34,578

34,578

69,157

69,157

2014

139,562

140

1,396

6,978

6,978

13,956

20,934

34,891

34,891

69,781

69,781

Year

Total

Top 0.1%

Top 1%

Top 5%

Between 5% & 10%

Top 10%

Between 10% & 25%

Top 25%

Between 25% & 50%

Top 50%

Bottom 50%

Table 3. Adjusted Gross Income of Taxpayers in Various Income Brackets, 1980–2014 ($Billions)

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

1980

$1,627

$138

$342

$181

$523

$400

$922

$417

$1,339

$288

1981

$1,791

$149

$372

$201

$573

$442

$1,015

$458

$1,473

$318

1982

$1,876

$167

$398

$207

$605

$460

$1,065

$478

$1,544

$332

1983

$1,970

$183

$428

$217

$646

$481

$1,127

$498

$1,625

$344

1984

$2,173

$210

$482

$240

$723

$528

$1,251

$543

$1,794

$379

1985

$2,344

$235

$531

$260

$791

$567

$1,359

$580

$1,939

$405

1986

$2,524

$285

$608

$278

$887

$604

$1,490

$613

$2,104

$421

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

1987

$2,814

$347

$722

$316

$1,038

$671

$1,709

$664

$2,374

$440

1988

$3,124

$474

$891

$342

$1,233

$718

$1,951

$707

$2,658

$466

1989

$3,299

$468

$918

$368

$1,287

$768

$2,054

$751

$2,805

$494

1990

$3,451

$483

$953

$385

$1,338

$806

$2,144

$788

$2,933

$519

1991

$3,516

$457

$943

$400

$1,343

$832

$2,175

$809

$2,984

$532

1992

$3,681

$524

$1,031

$413

$1,444

$856

$2,299

$832

$3,131

$549

1993

$3,776

$521

$1,048

$426

$1,474

$883

$2,358

$854

$3,212

$563

1994

$3,961

$547

$1,103

$449

$1,552

$929

$2,481

$890

$3,371

$590

1995

$4,245

$620

$1,223

$482

$1,705

$985

$2,690

$938

$3,628

$617

1996

$4,591

$737

$1,394

$515

$1,909

$1,043

$2,953

$992

$3,944

$646

1997

$5,023

$873

$1,597

$554

$2,151

$1,116

$3,268

$1,060

$4,328

$695

1998

$5,469

$1,010

$1,797

$597

$2,394

$1,196

$3,590

$1,132

$4,721

$748

1999

$5,909

$1,153

$2,012

$641

$2,653

$1,274

$3,927

$1,199

$5,126

$783

2000

$6,424

$1,337

$2,267

$688

$2,955

$1,358

$4,314

$1,276

$5,590

$834

The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

2001

$6,116

$492

$1,065

$1,934

$666

$2,600

$1,334

$3,933

$1,302

$5,235

$881

2002

$5,982

$421

$960

$1,812

$660

$2,472

$1,339

$3,812

$1,303

$5,115

$867

2003

$6,157

$466

$1,030

$1,908

$679

$2,587

$1,375

$3,962

$1,325

$5,287

$870

2004

$6,735

$615

$1,279

$2,243

$725

$2,968

$1,455

$4,423

$1,403

$5,826

$908

2005

$7,366

$784

$1,561

$2,623

$778

$3,401

$1,540

$4,940

$1,473

$6,413

$953

2006

$7,970

$895

$1,761

$2,918

$841

$3,760

$1,652

$5,412

$1,568

$6,980

$990

2007

$8,622

$1,030

$1,971

$3,223

$905

$4,128

$1,770

$5,898

$1,673

$7,571

$1,051

2008

$8,206

$826

$1,657

$2,868

$905

$3,773

$1,782

$5,555

$1,673

$7,228

$978

2009

$7,579

$602

$1,305

$2,439

$878

$3,317

$1,740

$5,058

$1,620

$6,678

$900

2010

$8,040

$743

$1,517

$2,716

$915

$3,631

$1,800

$5,431

$1,665

$7,096

$944

2011

$8,317

$737

$1,556

$2,819

$956

$3,775

$1,866

$5,641

$1,716

$7,357

$961

2012

$9,042

$1,017

$1,977

$3,331

$997

$4,328

$1,934

$6,262

$1,776

$8,038

$1,004

2013

$9,034

$816

$1,720

$3,109

$1,034

$4,143

$2,008

$6,152

$1,844

$7,996

$1,038

2014

$9,709

$986

$1,998

$3,491

$1,093

$4,583

$2,107

$6,690

$1,924

$8,615

$1,094

Year

Total

Top 0.1%

Top 1%

Top 5%

Between 5% & 10%

Top 10%

Between 10% & 25%

Top 25%

Between 25% & 50%

Top 50%

Bottom 50%

Table 4. Total Income Tax after Credits, 1980–2014 ($Billions)

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

1980

$249

$47

$92

$31

$123

$59

$182

$50

$232

$18

1981

$282

$50

$99

$36

$135

$69

$204

$57

$261

$21

1982

$276

$53

$100

$34

$134

$66

$200

$56

$256

$20

1983

$272

$55

$101

$34

$135

$64

$199

$54

$252

$19

1984

$297

$63

$113

$37

$150

$68

$219

$57

$276

$22

1985

$322

$70

$125

$41

$166

$73

$238

$60

$299

$23

1986

$367

$94

$156

$44

$201

$78

$279

$64

$343

$24

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

1987

$369

$92

$160

$46

$205

$79

$284

$63

$347

$22

1988

$413

$114

$188

$48

$236

$85

$321

$68

$389

$24

1989

$433

$109

$190

$51

$241

$93

$334

$73

$408

$25

1990

$447

$112

$195

$52

$248

$97

$344

$77

$421

$26

1991

$448

$111

$194

$56

$250

$96

$347

$77

$424

$25

1992

$476

$131

$218

$58

$276

$97

$374

$78

$452

$24

1993

$503

$146

$238

$60

$298

$101

$399

$80

$479

$24

1994

$535

$154

$254

$64

$318

$108

$425

$84

$509

$25

1995

$588

$178

$288

$70

$357

$115

$473

$88

$561

$27

1996

$658

$213

$335

$76

$411

$124

$535

$95

$630

$28

1997

$727

$241

$377

$82

$460

$134

$594

$102

$696

$31

1998

$788

$274

$425

$88

$513

$139

$652

$103

$755

$33

1999

$877

$317

$486

$97

$583

$150

$733

$109

$842

$35

2000

$981

$367

$554

$106

$660

$164

$824

$118

$942

$38

The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

2001

$885

$139

$294

$462

$101

$564

$158

$722

$120

$842

$43

2002

$794

$120

$263

$420

$93

$513

$143

$657

$104

$761

$33

2003

$746

$115

$251

$399

$85

$484

$133

$617

$98

$715

$30

2004

$829

$142

$301

$467

$91

$558

$137

$695

$102

$797

$32

2005

$932

$176

$361

$549

$98

$647

$145

$793

$106

$898

$33

2006

$1,020

$196

$402

$607

$108

$715

$157

$872

$113

$986

$35

2007

$1,112

$221

$443

$666

$117

$783

$170

$953

$122

$1,075

$37

2008

$1,029

$187

$386

$597

$115

$712

$168

$880

$117

$997

$32

2009

$863

$146

$314

$502

$101

$604

$146

$749

$93

$842

$21

2010

$949

$170

$355

$561

$110

$670

$156

$827

$100

$927

$22

2011

$1,043

$168

$366

$589

$123

$712

$181

$893

$120

$1,012

$30

2012

$1,185

$220

$451

$699

$133

$831

$193

$1,024

$128

$1,152

$33

2013

$1,232

$228

$466

$721

$139

$860

$203

$1,063

$135

$1,198

$34

2014

$1,374

$273

$543

$824

$150

$974

$219

$1,193

$144

$1,337

$38

Year

Total

Top 0.1%

Top 1%

Top 5%

Between 5% & 10%

Top 10%

Between 10% & 25%

Top 25%

Between 25% & 50%

Top 50%

Bottom 50%

Table 5. Adjusted Gross Income Shares, 1980–2014 (percent of total AGI earned by each group)

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

1980

100%

8.46%

21.01%

11.12%

32.13%

24.57%

56.70%

25.62%

82.32%

17.68%

1981

100%

8.30%

20.78%

11.20%

31.98%

24.69%

56.67%

25.59%

82.25%

17.75%

1982

100%

8.91%

21.23%

11.03%

32.26%

24.53%

56.79%

25.50%

82.29%

17.71%

1983

100%

9.29%

21.74%

11.04%

32.78%

24.44%

57.22%

25.30%

82.52%

17.48%

1984

100%

9.66%

22.19%

11.06%

33.25%

24.31%

57.56%

25.00%

82.56%

17.44%

1985

100%

10.03%

22.67%

11.10%

33.77%

24.21%

57.97%

24.77%

82.74%

17.26%

1986

100%

11.30%

24.11%

11.02%

35.12%

23.92%

59.04%

24.30%

83.34%

16.66%

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

1987

100%

12.32%

25.67%

11.23%

36.90%

23.85%

60.75%

23.62%

84.37%

15.63%

1988

100%

15.16%

28.51%

10.94%

39.45%

22.99%

62.44%

22.63%

85.07%

14.93%

1989

100%

14.19%

27.84%

11.16%

39.00%

23.28%

62.28%

22.76%

85.04%

14.96%

1990

100%

14.00%

27.62%

11.15%

38.77%

23.36%

62.13%

22.84%

84.97%

15.03%

1991

100%

12.99%

26.83%

11.37%

38.20%

23.65%

61.85%

23.01%

84.87%

15.13%

1992

100%

14.23%

28.01%

11.21%

39.23%

23.25%

62.47%

22.61%

85.08%

14.92%

1993

100%

13.79%

27.76%

11.29%

39.05%

23.40%

62.45%

22.63%

85.08%

14.92%

1994

100%

13.80%

27.85%

11.34%

39.19%

23.45%

62.64%

22.48%

85.11%

14.89%

1995

100%

14.60%

28.81%

11.35%

40.16%

23.21%

63.37%

22.09%

85.46%

14.54%

1996

100%

16.04%

30.36%

11.23%

41.59%

22.73%

64.32%

21.60%

85.92%

14.08%

1997

100%

17.38%

31.79%

11.03%

42.83%

22.22%

65.05%

21.11%

86.16%

13.84%

1998

100%

18.47%

32.85%

10.92%

43.77%

21.87%

65.63%

20.69%

86.33%

13.67%

1999

100%

19.51%

34.04%

10.85%

44.89%

21.57%

66.46%

20.29%

86.75%

13.25%

2000

100%

20.81%

35.30%

10.71%

46.01%

21.15%

67.15%

19.86%

87.01%

12.99%

The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

2001

100%

8.05%

17.41%

31.61%

10.89%

42.50%

21.80%

64.31%

21.29%

85.60%

14.40%

2002

100%

7.04%

16.05%

30.29%

11.04%

41.33%

22.39%

63.71%

21.79%

85.50%

14.50%

2003

100%

7.56%

16.73%

30.99%

11.03%

42.01%

22.33%

64.34%

21.52%

85.87%

14.13%

2004

100%

9.14%

18.99%

33.31%

10.77%

44.07%

21.60%

65.68%

20.83%

86.51%

13.49%

2005

100%

10.64%

21.19%

35.61%

10.56%

46.17%

20.90%

67.07%

19.99%

87.06%

12.94%

2006

100%

11.23%

22.10%

36.62%

10.56%

47.17%

20.73%

67.91%

19.68%

87.58%

12.42%

2007

100%

11.95%

22.86%

37.39%

10.49%

47.88%

20.53%

68.41%

19.40%

87.81%

12.19%

2008

100%

10.06%

20.19%

34.95%

11.03%

45.98%

21.71%

67.69%

20.39%

88.08%

11.92%

2009

100%

7.94%

17.21%

32.18%

11.59%

43.77%

22.96%

66.74%

21.38%

88.12%

11.88%

2010

100%

9.24%

18.87%

33.78%

11.38%

45.17%

22.38%

67.55%

20.71%

88.26%

11.74%

2011

100%

8.86%

18.70%

33.89%

11.50%

45.39%

22.43%

67.82%

20.63%

88.45%

11.55%

2012

100%

11.25%

21.86%

36.84%

11.03%

47.87%

21.39%

69.25%

19.64%

88.90%

11.10%

2013

100%

9.03%

19.04%

34.42%

11.45%

45.87%

22.23%

68.10%

20.41%

88.51%

11.49%

2014

100%

10.16%

20.58%

35.96%

11.25%

47.21%

21.70%

68.91%

19.82%

88.73%

11.27%

Year

Total

Top 0.1%

Top 1%

Top 5%

Between 5% & 10%

Top 10%

Between 10% & 25%

Top 25%

Between 25% & 50%

Top 50%

Bottom 50%

Table 6. Total Income Tax Shares, 1980–2014 (percent of federal income tax paid by each group)

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

1980

100%

19.05%

36.84%

12.44%

49.28%

23.74%

73.02%

19.93%

92.95%

7.05%

1981

100%

17.58%

35.06%

12.90%

47.96%

24.33%

72.29%

20.26%

92.55%

7.45%

1982

100%

19.03%

36.13%

12.45%

48.59%

23.91%

72.50%

20.15%

92.65%

7.35%

1983

100%

20.32%

37.26%

12.44%

49.71%

23.39%

73.10%

19.73%

92.83%

7.17%

1984

100%

21.12%

37.98%

12.58%

50.56%

22.92%

73.49%

19.16%

92.65%

7.35%

1985

100%

21.81%

38.78%

12.67%

51.46%

22.60%

74.06%

18.77%

92.83%

7.17%

1986

100%

25.75%

42.57%

12.12%

54.69%

21.33%

76.02%

17.52%

93.54%

6.46%

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

1987

100%

24.81%

43.26%

12.35%

55.61%

21.31%

76.92%

17.02%

93.93%

6.07%

1988

100%

27.58%

45.62%

11.66%

57.28%

20.57%

77.84%

16.44%

94.28%

5.72%

1989

100%

25.24%

43.94%

11.85%

55.78%

21.44%

77.22%

16.94%

94.17%

5.83%

1990

100%

25.13%

43.64%

11.73%

55.36%

21.66%

77.02%

17.16%

94.19%

5.81%

1991

100%

24.82%

43.38%

12.45%

55.82%

21.46%

77.29%

17.23%

94.52%

5.48%

1992

100%

27.54%

45.88%

12.12%

58.01%

20.47%

78.48%

16.46%

94.94%

5.06%

1993

100%

29.01%

47.36%

11.88%

59.24%

20.03%

79.27%

15.92%

95.19%

4.81%

1994

100%

28.86%

47.52%

11.93%

59.45%

20.10%

79.55%

15.68%

95.23%

4.77%

1995

100%

30.26%

48.91%

11.84%

60.75%

19.62%

80.36%

15.03%

95.39%

4.61%

1996

100%

32.31%

50.97%

11.54%

62.51%

18.80%

81.32%

14.36%

95.68%

4.32%

1997

100%

33.17%

51.87%

11.33%

63.20%

18.47%

81.67%

14.05%

95.72%

4.28%

1998

100%

34.75%

53.84%

11.20%

65.04%

17.65%

82.69%

13.10%

95.79%

4.21%

1999

100%

36.18%

55.45%

11.00%

66.45%

17.09%

83.54%

12.46%

96.00%

4.00%

2000

100%

37.42%

56.47%

10.86%

67.33%

16.68%

84.01%

12.08%

96.09%

3.91%

The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

2001

100%

15.68%

33.22%

52.24%

11.44%

63.68%

17.88%

81.56%

13.54%

95.10%

4.90%

2002

100%

15.09%

33.09%

52.86%

11.77%

64.63%

18.04%

82.67%

13.12%

95.79%

4.21%

2003

100%

15.37%

33.69%

53.54%

11.35%

64.89%

17.87%

82.76%

13.17%

95.93%

4.07%

2004

100%

17.12%

36.28%

56.35%

10.96%

67.30%

16.52%

83.82%

12.31%

96.13%

3.87%

2005

100%

18.91%

38.78%

58.93%

10.52%

69.46%

15.61%

85.07%

11.35%

96.41%

3.59%

2006

100%

19.24%

39.36%

59.49%

10.59%

70.08%

15.41%

85.49%

11.10%

96.59%

3.41%

2007

100%

19.84%

39.81%

59.90%

10.51%

70.41%

15.30%

85.71%

10.93%

96.64%

3.36%

2008

100%

18.20%

37.51%

58.06%

11.14%

69.20%

16.37%

85.57%

11.33%

96.90%

3.10%

2009

100%

16.91%

36.34%

58.17%

11.72%

69.89%

16.85%

86.74%

10.80%

97.54%

2.46%

2010

100%

17.88%

37.38%

59.07%

11.55%

70.62%

16.49%

87.11%

10.53%

97.64%

2.36%

2011

100%

16.14%

35.06%

56.49%

11.77%

68.26%

17.36%

85.62%

11.50%

97.11%

2.89%

2012

100%

18.60%

38.09%

58.95%

11.22%

70.17%

16.25%

86.42%

10.80%

97.22%

2.78%

2013

100%

18.48%

37.80%

58.55%

11.25%

69.80%

16.47%

86.27%

10.94%

97.22%

2.78%

2014

100%

19.85%

39.48%

59.97%

10.91%

70.88%

15.90%

86.78%

10.47%

97.25%

2.75%

Year

Total

Top 1%

Top 5%

Top 10%

Top 25%

Top 50%

Table 7. Dollar Cut-Off, 1980–2014 (Minimum AGI for Tax Returns to Fall into Various Percentiles; Thresholds Not Adjusted for Inflation)

1980

$80,580

$43,792

$35,070

$23,606

$12,936

1981

$85,428

$47,845

$38,283

$25,655

$14,000

1982

$89,388

$49,284

$39,676

$27,027

$14,539

1983

$93,512

$51,553

$41,222

$27,827

$15,044

1984

$100,889

$55,423

$43,956

$29,360

$15,998

1985

$108,134

$58,883

$46,322

$30,928

$16,688

1986

$118,818

$62,377

$48,656

$32,242

$17,302

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

1987

$139,289

$68,414

$52,921

$33,983

$17,768

1988

$157,136

$72,735

$55,437

$35,398

$18,367

1989

$163,869

$76,933

$58,263

$36,839

$18,993

1990

$167,421

$79,064

$60,287

$38,080

$19,767

1991

$170,139

$81,720

$61,944

$38,929

$20,097

1992

$181,904

$85,103

$64,457

$40,378

$20,803

1993

$185,715

$87,386

$66,077

$41,210

$21,179

1994

$195,726

$91,226

$68,753

$42,742

$21,802

1995

$209,406

$96,221

$72,094

$44,207

$22,344

1996

$227,546

$101,141

$74,986

$45,757

$23,174

1997

$250,736

$108,048

$79,212

$48,173

$24,393

1998

$269,496

$114,729

$83,220

$50,607

$25,491

1999

$293,415

$120,846

$87,682

$52,965

$26,415

2000

$313,469

$128,336

$92,144

$55,225

$27,682

The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

2001

$1,393,718

$306,635

$132,082

$96,151

$59,026

$31,418

2002

$1,245,352

$296,194

$130,750

$95,699

$59,066

$31,299

2003

$1,317,088

$305,939

$133,741

$97,470

$59,896

$31,447

2004

$1,617,918

$339,993

$140,758

$101,838

$62,794

$32,622

2005

$1,938,175

$379,261

$149,216

$106,864

$64,821

$33,484

2006

$2,124,625

$402,603

$157,390

$112,016

$67,291

$34,417

2007

$2,251,017

$426,439

$164,883

$116,396

$69,559

$35,541

2008

$1,867,652

$392,513

$163,512

$116,813

$69,813

$35,340

2009

$1,469,393

$351,968

$157,342

$114,181

$68,216

$34,156

2010

$1,634,386

$369,691

$161,579

$116,623

$69,126

$34,338

2011

$1,717,675

$388,905

$167,728

$120,136

$70,492

$34,823

2012

$2,161,175

$434,682

$175,817

$125,195

$73,354

$36,055

2013

$1,860,848

$428,713

$179,760

$127,695

$74,955

$36,841

2014

$2,136,762

$465,626

$188,996

$133,445

$77,714

$38,173

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

Year

Total

Top 0.1%

Top 1%

Top 5%

Between 5% & 10%

Top 10%

Between 10% & 25%

Top 25%

Between 25% & 50%

Top 50%

Bottom 50%

Table 8. Average Tax Rate, 1980–2014 (Percent of AGI Paid in Income Taxes)

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

1980

15.31%

34.47%

26.85%

17.13%

23.49%

14.80%

19.72%

11.91%

17.29%

6.10%

1981

15.76%

33.37%

26.59%

18.16%

23.64%

15.53%

20.11%

12.48%

17.73%

6.62%

1982

14.72%

31.43%

25.05%

16.61%

22.17%

14.35%

18.79%

11.63%

16.57%

6.10%

1983

13.79%

30.18%

23.64%

15.54%

20.91%

13.20%

17.62%

10.76%

15.52%

5.66%

1984

13.68%

29.92%

23.42%

15.57%

20.81%

12.90%

17.47%

10.48%

15.35%

5.77%

1985

13.73%

29.86%

23.50%

15.69%

20.93%

12.83%

17.55%

10.41%

15.41%

5.70%

1986

14.54%

33.13%

25.68%

15.99%

22.64%

12.97%

18.72%

10.48%

16.32%

5.63%

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

1987

13.12%

26.41%

22.10%

14.43%

19.77%

11.71%

16.61%

9.45%

14.60%

5.09%

1988

13.21%

24.04%

21.14%

14.07%

19.18%

11.82%

16.47%

9.60%

14.64%

5.06%

1989

13.12%

23.34%

20.71%

13.93%

18.77%

12.08%

16.27%

9.77%

14.53%

5.11%

1990

12.95%

23.25%

20.46%

13.63%

18.50%

12.01%

16.06%

9.73%

14.36%

5.01%

1991

12.75%

24.37%

20.62%

13.96%

18.63%

11.57%

15.93%

9.55%

14.20%

4.62%

1992

12.94%

25.05%

21.19%

13.99%

19.13%

11.39%

16.25%

9.42%

14.44%

4.39%

1993

13.32%

28.01%

22.71%

14.01%

20.20%

11.40%

16.90%

9.37%

14.90%

4.29%

1994

13.50%

28.23%

23.04%

14.20%

20.48%

11.57%

17.15%

9.42%

15.11%

4.32%

1995

13.86%

28.73%

23.53%

14.46%

20.97%

11.71%

17.58%

9.43%

15.47%

4.39%

1996

14.34%

28.87%

24.07%

14.74%

21.55%

11.86%

18.12%

9.53%

15.96%

4.40%

1997

14.48%

27.64%

23.62%

14.87%

21.36%

12.04%

18.18%

9.63%

16.09%

4.48%

1998

14.42%

27.12%

23.63%

14.79%

21.42%

11.63%

18.16%

9.12%

16.00%

4.44%

1999

14.85%

27.53%

24.18%

15.06%

21.98%

11.76%

18.66%

9.12%

16.43%

4.48%

2000

15.26%

27.45%

24.42%

15.48%

22.34%

12.04%

19.09%

9.28%

16.86%

4.60%

The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

2001

14.47%

28.17%

27.60%

23.91%

15.20%

21.68%

11.87%

18.35%

9.20%

16.08%

4.92%

2002

13.28%

28.48%

27.37%

23.17%

14.15%

20.76%

10.70%

17.23%

8.00%

14.87%

3.86%

2003

12.11%

24.60%

24.38%

20.92%

12.46%

18.70%

9.69%

15.57%

7.41%

13.53%

3.49%

2004

12.31%

23.06%

23.52%

20.83%

12.53%

18.80%

9.41%

15.71%

7.27%

13.68%

3.53%

2005

12.65%

22.48%

23.15%

20.93%

12.61%

19.03%

9.45%

16.04%

7.18%

14.01%

3.51%

2006

12.80%

21.94%

22.80%

20.80%

12.84%

19.02%

9.52%

16.12%

7.22%

14.12%

3.51%

2007

12.90%

21.42%

22.46%

20.66%

12.92%

18.96%

9.61%

16.16%

7.27%

14.19%

3.56%

2008

12.54%

22.67%

23.29%

20.83%

12.66%

18.87%

9.45%

15.85%

6.97%

13.79%

3.26%

2009

11.39%

24.28%

24.05%

20.59%

11.53%

18.19%

8.36%

14.81%

5.76%

12.61%

2.35%

2010

11.81%

22.84%

23.39%

20.64%

11.98%

18.46%

8.70%

15.22%

6.01%

13.06%

2.37%

2011

12.54%

22.82%

23.50%

20.89%

12.83%

18.85%

9.70%

15.82%

6.98%

13.76%

3.13%

2012

13.11%

21.67%

22.83%

20.97%

13.33%

19.21%

9.96%

16.35%

7.21%

14.33%

3.28%

2013

13.64%

27.91%

27.08%

23.20%

13.40%

20.75%

10.11%

17.28%

7.31%

14.98%

3.30%

2014

14.16%

27.67%

27.16%

23.61%

13.73%

21.25%

10.37%

17.83%

7.48%

15.52%

3.45%

For data prior to 2001, all tax returns that have a positive AGI are included, even those that do not have a positive income tax liability. For data from 2001 forward, returns with negative AGI are also included, but dependent returns are excluded.

Income tax after credits (the measure of “income taxes paid” above) does not account for the refundable portion of EITC. If it were included, the tax share of the top income groups would be higher. The refundable portion is classified as a spending program by the Office of Management and Budget and therefore is not included by the IRS in these figures.

The only tax analyzed here is the federal individual income tax, which is responsible for more than 25 percent of the nation’s taxes paid (at all levels of government). Federal income taxes are much more progressive than federal payroll taxes, which are responsible for about 20 percent of all taxes paid (at all levels of government), and are more progressive than most state and local taxes.

AGI is a fairly narrow income concept and does not include income items like government transfers (except for the portion of Social Security benefits that is taxed), the value of employer-provided health insurance, underreported or unreported income (most notably that of sole proprietors), income derived from municipal bond interest, net imputed rental income, and others.

The unit of analysis here is that of the tax return. In the figures prior to 2001, some dependent returns are included. Under other units of analysis (like the Treasury Department’s Family Economic Unit), these returns would likely be paired with parents’ returns.

These figures represent the legal incidence of the income tax. Most distributional tables (such as those from CBO, Tax Policy Center, Citizens for Tax Justice, the Treasury Department, and JCT) assume that the entire economic incidence of personal income taxes falls on the income earner.

[3] There is strong reason to believe that capital gains realizations were unusually depressed in 2013, due to the increase in the top capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 23.8 percent. In 2013, capital gains accounted for 26.6 percent of the income of taxpayers with over $1 million in AGI received, compared to 31.7 percent in 2014 (these calculations apply for net capital gains reported on Schedule D). Table 1.4, Publication 1304, “Individual Income Tax Returns 2014,” Internal Revenue Service, https://www.irs.gov/uac/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-returns-publication-1304-complete-report.

Part 2 of 2 — Story 2: Republican Tax Cut Will Not Make America Great Again — Missing Is Real Government Spending Cuts That Results in A Balanced Budget By 2020 or 2024 — Spending Addiction Disorder (SAD) or Government Spending Obesity — Alive and Well — Videos

How to Solve America’s Spending Problem

The War on Work

Myths, Lies and Capitalism

What is Crony Capitalism?

If You Hate Poverty, You Should Love Capitalism

15 Things Poor People Do That The Rich Don’t

The Untold Truth Of ALDI

Coolidge: The Best President You Don’t Know

Government Spending Out of Control! Mass Addiction to Government!

Milton Friedman – Is tax reform possible?

Milton Friedman – Why Tax Reform Is Impossible

The Myth of a Fair Tax | Joseph T. Salerno

Story 3: A Broad Based Consumption Tax Replacing The Current U.S. Income Tax System Along The Lines of The FairTax or Fair Tax Less With Generous Monthly Tax Prebates and Limiting Federal Government Expenditures to 90% of Taxes Collected Will Make America Great Again — Videos

Jihad Terror Attack at OSU – Ohio State University

Ohio State attack: Police identify suspect as business student

The Columbus Dispatch • Monday November 28, 2016

Monday morning dawned on the Ohio State University campus in positive fashion. Students had just returned after visits home for Thanksgiving weekend. And they were still in a celebratory mood from the Buckeyes’ football win over rival Michigan on Saturday.

Nothing would have prepared anyone for what had happened by late morning.

A student, Ohio State police say, drove a car into a group of people standing outside a campus building, throwing some into the air and running over others. The driver then jumped from the car with a butcher knife, slashing more people. Less than a minute after the attack, an OSU police officer had shot and killed the man. In the end, 11 people were injured.

The suspect has been identified as Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who was a Logistics Management major in the College of Business at Ohio State. Police said they believe he was 18 years old, though other reports have said he was 20. Records show he lived in western Franklin County, in Franklin Township. Records also show that he graduated with honors, with an associate’s degree, from Columbus State Community College in May before transferring this semester to Ohio State.

Police said the officer who shot and killed Artan is Ohio State University Police Officer Alan Horujko, 28, who has been with the police department since January 2015. He wasn’t injured.

Neighbors in the Havenwood Townhome complex just off Georgesville Road, where Artan lived, said police and the sheriff’s office bomb squad have been there since shortly before 11 am., not long after the situation on campus unfolded. Police crime-scene tape surrounds the complex and officers reportedly are working with federal officials from the FBI and Homeland Security to search his apartment.

For a time, officials believed a second suspect might be in the Lane Avenue garage, but they searched it and found no one. They have since said there was only one suspect. Surveillance footage from cameras on campus showed the suspect’s car entering campus at Kenny Road and Woody Hayes Drive, OSU Police Chief Craig Stone said. Other cameras recorded it on Woodruff Drive and on 19th Avenue. “We could tell that the suspect was in the car by himself,” Stone said.

Andrew Thomas, chief medical officer of Ohio State University’s Wexner Medical Center, said that 11 people were hurt in the incident, two of whom were not transported by ambulance but sought medical care on their own later. All are expected to survive.

Of five at Wexner, two have stab wounds, two were hit by the car and one has cuts, Thomas said. One who came later had injuries from the car.

Two more went to OhioHealth Riverside Methodist Hospital, both hit by the car. One has orthopedic injuries and one a skull fracture, Thomas said. At OhioHealth Grant Medical Center, two people were treated for lacerations and one went later with injuries from the car.

One woman was transported to a hospital by a Columbus fire medic with a gunshot wound to her foot, Fire Chief Kevin O’Connor said. Officials haven’t yet said how that happened, but the woman told medics she was running from the incident and called for help after reaching a safe place.

Thomas didn’t release the names of those injured, but said those at Wexner Medical Center included one faculty member, two graduate students and one undergraduate student. He said those at the OhioHealth hospitals included two undergraduates and two graduate students.

The attack happened outside of Watts Hall, at West 19th Street west of College Road, shortly before 10 a.m. Earlier in the morning, the building had been evacuated because of a report of a gas leak. Authorities say the report of a leak had nothing to do with the attack, but was the reason that a police officer was right there when the car hit those outside.

At a news conference, officials said that Horujko had just cleared the scene from the gas-leak alarm when, at 9:52 a.m., he saw a car strike several pedestrians who had been evacuated into the courtyard outside. He issued a radio alert that seven to eight pedestrians had been struck.

He said the driver got out of the car with a large knife and began attacking people, and he ordered the man to drop the knife.

The man refused and, by 9:53 a.m., he had been shot and killed.

Those who knew Artan say they’re shocked. Neighbors said his family had immigrated to the Columbus area from Somalia.

Jack Ouham owns the Hometown Market, which is just around the corner from where Artan lived with his family. He said that Artan came in there once or twice a day and had lived in an apartment with his mother and six or seven siblings.

“I don’t know what made him act like that,” Ouham said. “He don’t drink. He don’t smoke. He don’t use narcotics. They’re very nice people.”

Ohio State’s student newspaper interviewed Artan in August, shortly after he started at Ohio State. Artan talked about moving from Columbus State to such a large school, and being Muslim and the importance of prayer.

“This is my first day. This place is huge and I don’t even know where to pray,” he said. “I wanted to pray in the open, but I was kind of scared with everything going on in the media…I was kind of scared right now. But I just did it. I relied on God. I went to the corner and just prayed.”

After the suspect was identified, Ohio State President Dr. Michael Drake said, “What we really want to do is unify together, support each other.

“Let’s not jump to conclusions and perhaps create a bad situation where one doesn’t exist.”

Hakim Ouham said he often visited his uncle at his store and also knew Artan.

“He’s the last guy I’d expect,” Hakim Ouham said.

Artan also was a frequent customer of the nearby Khyber Restaurant, where he often picked up lamb gyros, said Niaz Siddiqui.

Siddiqui called Artan a “cool guy” who often talked to him about going to college.

Monday night, members of the central Ohio Muslim community gathered at the headquarters for the Center for American-Islamic Relations-Ohio in Dublin to talk about the attack.

Nichol Ghazi said that when she first heard, her reaction was “don’t let it be someone from our community.”

Ghazi, of Galena, offered sympathy for victims of the attack, and wanted the Ohio State community to know they stand with them. Her Muslim faith, she said, is not one that encourages violence, and said that Islam preaches, “‘If you take one life, it’s as if you’ve taken all of humanity. It’s that grievous of a sin.”

“OSU is our home,” added Abdi Dini, a member of the local Somali community. “Any twisted minds that would claim such a sickening act of violence is not a part of us.”

Campus officials have said that classes will continue normally Tuesday.

Around campus Monday night, students held several candlelight vigils and attended religious services.

St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church welcomed about 40 people for a 7 p.m. candlelight vigil led by religious leaders representing several faiths. The Woodruff Avenue church is just down the street from where the attack occurred.

The Rev. Karl Stephens, the church’s director of campus ministry, said he hopes all who attended the hourlong event found hope in unity.

“When a burden is borne, it’s better to be borne together than alone,” Stephens said. “During this time of such fear and shock, we need to support and unite our community.”

Students first learned of a problem when an “active shooter” alert was sent at 9:55 a.m. to the campus community, urging people to hide in place.

One 911 caller was outside with classmates after the building was cleared. He saw much of what happened.

“There was a guy who crashed his car into a bunch of people and ran out with a knife chasing down people,” the caller told 911 dispatchers.

The caller moments later, told the dispatcher that the crisis was over. “I think he is dead. I’m looking at him now. Never mind.”

At 11:30 a.m., the university said the scene was secure and that all classes were canceled for the day. The shelter-in-place order was lifted at 11:14 a.m., but more than a dozen buildings remained closed.

U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty, a Democrat from Jefferson Township, called the campus emergency-alert system “life-saving” and praised OSU officials for instituting it. “Those things don’t just happen,” she said.

Mayor Andrew J. Ginther said it was “one of those days when you’re grateful for good training and great people.” He said police deserve particular credit for handling the incident well in a climate of contentious relations. “There has never been a more complicated and challenging time to be a police officer,” he said.

Ginther made no reference to Artan’s ethnicity or background but said he is proud that Columbus is “warm and welcoming” to immigrants and refugees. “We welcome people from all over the world,” he said.

Columbus police, Ohio State police and deputies with the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office rushed to the scene. Students took to social media to find information, and posted video and pictures to Twitter of the scene.

Mike O’Connell, a senior from Dublin, said he did not hear shots, but got the alerts.

“I just had a class over here an hour ago,” he said. “This is insane. I’ve never seen anything like this.”

Another student said she was in a business class when she received the emergency alert. She said she could see people running outside.

“We’re just staying safe, making sure everyone else is safe,” the sophomore said.

Peter Anderson, chairman of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, said he arrived at Watts Hall after the attack was over.

He said students told him that someone called in a fluorine leak in the building, which has lab facilities. As required during emergencies, the students congregated in the courtyard outside the building.

He said the attacker drove a car into the courtyard. “It’s where we hold our ice cream socials and when something like this happens,”Anderson said.

One victim was struck so hard that the person flew into the air and landed on a hard surface.

“It sounds very fortunate that bsed on what I heard, if this is not a life-threatening injury,” Anderson said.

Anderson said one of his colleagues, professor emeritus William Clark, was slashed in his lower leg by the attacker.

Upper Arlington and Grandview schools were locked down for a short time while police investigated the incident.

On Tuesday, Ohio State will mark one year since another fatal incident happened on campus. It was a year ago Nov. 29 that Dean Sturgis, a former security guard for the Wexner Center for the Arts, went into that building and started shooting at artwork in the gallery.

The center was evacuated and closed. SWAT officers found Sturgis, 62, dead after he shot himself. No one else was hurt.

CHRISTIAN DATOC

Reporter

The man behind Monday’s horrific attack at Ohio State University has been identified as Abdul Razak Ali Artan.

Ohio law enforcement officials confirmed to NBC News Monday afternoon that Artan — an 18-year-old freshman at OSU — was the man who plowed a car into a crowd of people on campus and subsequently attacked passers-by with a butcher’s knife.

Huckabee on Romney for Secretary of State: Why would he do it?

Donald Trump: Mitt Romney was a disaster as a candidate

Watch Mitt Romney’s full speech: ‘Trump is a phony, a fraud’

Conway shoots down report that Trump is ‘furious’ with her

Donald Trump’s senior adviser Kellyanne Conway panned as “sexist” a report by MSNBC Monday morning that the president-elect is “furious” with her over her attacks against Mitt Romney, a possible pick to be secretary of state.

Conway savaged Romney in multiple appearances on Sunday morning political talk shows, announcing that the opposition to the 2012 Republican presidential nominee among the president-elect’s supporters is “breathtaking in scope and intensity.” She attacked him for losing Michigan, a state Trump won, and suggested that he has weak credentials for the position of secretary of state.

Citing anonymous sources at the top of Trump’s transition team, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” reported that Trump was “furious” with Conway for attacking Romney in her Sunday interviews. One source told the network that “Kellyanne went rogue at Donald Trump’s expense” while another said there is a growing sentiment within the transition team that Conway has been promoting her own agenda instead of the president-elect’s.

Conway responded to MSNBC with a statement which the “Morning Joe” anchors paraphrased on air. In it, the Trump senior adviser said of MSNBC’s reporting: “It is all false. And it is sexist.”

While Conway is the most high-profile member of Trump’s team to attack Romney, she is not alone in her sentiments. The former Massachusetts governor was one of the GOP’s loudest Trump critics during both the primary and general election campaigns, but the president-elect met with him nonetheless earlier this month and has allowed Romney’s name to circulate as a potential pick for secretary of state.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) have both been critical of Romney and have expressed skepticism at the notion of him landing a key cabinet post.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a staunch Trump loyalist, has campaigned hard and publicly for the secretary of state job as well.

Havana, Miami wake up to Fidel Castro death news (Streamed live)

Fidel Castro The Untold Story 2001 Documentary

The Fidel Castro Tapes – Los Archivos de Fidel Castro

Fidel Castro On Che Guevara

The Truth About Che Guevara

The True Story of Che Guevara (Full Documentary)

The Truth About Che Guevara

Exposing Fidel Castro and Che Guevara

Burn Baby Burn, Disco Inferno

“Burn Baby Burn”

And do we know exactly who we are
We hold the light but we still listen to the dark
And it tells us that we don’t measure up
And it tells us that we’ll never be enough, tell me
Do we know exactly who we are

We are the light
Light of the world
Light up the night
When will we learn
Now is our time
Now is our turn
To burn baby burn baby
Oh oh oh
Burn baby burn baby
Oh oh oh
Burn baby burn baby

And do we know exactly what we have
Why don’t we let it shine while we have the chance
It’s not so we can earn our place
We shine ‘cause we’ve been saved by grace, tell me
Do we know exactly what we have

We are the light
Light of the world
Light up the night
When will we learn
Now is our time
Now is our turn
To burn baby burn baby
Oh oh oh
Burn baby burn baby
Oh oh oh
Burn baby burn baby

Oh we’re a city on a hillside
So bright keep on shining
Oh take that fire from the inside
Outside keep on burning

We are the light
Light of the world
Light up the night
When will we learn
Now is our time
Now is our turn
To burn baby burn baby
Oh oh oh
Burn baby burn baby
Oh oh oh
Burn baby burn baby

Part 2: Story 1: Trump Gives Outstanding Economic Policy Speech Using Teleprompter and Before Clinton and Big Lie Media Crushed Trash As Backdrop –How To Make America Wealthy Again — The American Worker vs. Global Elitists — Free Fair Trade and Fair Tax Less — Landslide Victory For Trump in November — Videos

Donald J. Trump for President Policy Speech
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, author, and politician. He is chairman of The Trump Organization, which is the principal holding company for his real estate ventures and other business interests. He is also the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. Having worked in his father Fred Trump’s real estate and construction firm while attending college, he assumed control of that family business in 1973, later renaming it The Trump Organization. During his career, Trump has built hotels, casinos, golf courses, the Manhattan neighborhood Riverside South and numerous other developments, many of which bear his name, including Trump Entertainment Resorts (now owned by Carl Icahn). He has made the Trump name a valuable and distinct brand, licensing it to numerous enterprises in which he has minimal or no stake. He briefly sought the Reform Party’s nomination in the 2000 presidential election, withdrawing prior to any primary contests, although he won two primaries after his withdrawal. Listed by Forbes among the wealthiest 400 of The World’s Billionaires, Trump and his businesses, as well as his three marriages, have for decades received prominent media exposure. He hosted The Apprentice, a popular reality television show on NBC, from 2004 to 2015.

On June 16, 2015, Trump announced his candidacy for president as a Republican, and quickly emerged as the front-runner for his party’s nomination. His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to many free-trade agreements that he regards as unfair, often non-interventionist views on foreign policy, and a proposal to temporarily ban immigration to the United States from countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States, until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists. His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots.

Milton Friedman – Imports, Exports & Exchange Rates

Trump vs Friedman – Trade Policy Debate

Milton Friedman on Free Trade

Milton Friedman – Free Trade Vs Protectionism

Milton Friedman debates a protectionist

Milton Friedman on the Dangers of Protectionism (Obama’s recent tariff on Chinese imports

Gerald Celente 2016 Currency War, Trade War, Oil Prices & Bankism

The Legacy of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

Lessons from the Great Depression

Lincoln’s Tariff War | by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

An In Depth Look at Southern Secession and American Principles part 4

An In Depth Look at Southern Secession and American Principles part 5

Tariffs: The Road to Civil War Part 1

Published on Jul 12, 2015

The South was 25% of the population and they were paying 80% of the taxes in the US which were being used to subsidize Northern industries. There is no way around that.

The declaration of secession included language from every faction including minority factions like slave owners who had a lot of money. Slavery wasn’t originally part of it. They pissed and moaned until they got everything included in it. These people were not the driving force of secession as secession and nullification movements started 30 years before the Civil War when slavery wasn’t even on the table. Furthermore slavery WASN’T on the table in the Civil War either. The North via New York and Ohio introduced a constitutional amendment, the Corwin Amendment which forbid the interference in slavery. Congress passed it too. It read : “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” It was not ratified because the South seceded anyway the two largest states did so AFTER Lincoln put a naval blockade on his own country to collect the import and export taxes.

The CSA constitution changed things that we accept today a) it gave term limits b)it gave a line item veto and c) section 8 (I) was changed to

“The Congress shall have power – To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States”

. I will remind you that 5 Northern states also had slaves, actually they all allowed slaves just not as to scale as the south. Other Northern States forbid foreign blacks from even entering the state such as Lincolns home state and the black code laws. And the 13th amendment which freed the slaves was rejected by 3 northern states and only 1 southern state. Let’s think they just lost 400,000 people to free the slaves then vote against freeing the slaves? It was never about slavery. It was about as Lincoln said “preserving the union” Lincoln didn’t even bring up the issue of slaves until the middle of the war.

Lincoln said “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …”

He also said “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

And he said “Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

And pay attention to this Lincoln said ” I HAVE NO PURPOSE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO INTERFERE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY IN THE STATES WHERE IT EXIST. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

And “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” -Abe Lincoln your white separatist hero.

Tariffs: The Road to Civil War Part 2

Real Causes of “The Civil War”– Morrill tariff

Donald J. Trump Address: Declaring American Economic Independence

Today, Donald J. Trump spoke at the Alumisource Factory in Monessen, Pennsylvania. Mr. Trump’s speech focused on how to rebuild the American economy by fighting for fair trade. The middle class has collapsed because of the failed policies from Washington, D.C. that benefit the politicians, but not the American people. The all talk, no action politicians have promoted globalization at the expense of American workers. Mr. Trump will fight to put the country and its workers first in order to Make America Great Again. A transcript of the remarks can be viewed via the link below:

Today, Donald J. Trump announced the expansion of his campaign team making several appointments as he continues to build his operations in advance of the general elections.

Jason Miller will serve as Senior Communications Advisor, where he will work with the existing team to build out a full Communications Department to deliver victory this November. Mr. Miller will work with several areas of the campaign to ensure messaging coordination and implementation. Mr. Miller has managed campaigns and shaped messages for successful House, Senate and gubernatorial races in addition to serving on the senior staffs of two presidential campaigns.

Michael Abboud is joining the Trump Campaign as a Communications Coordinator. Formerly with the RNC Communications Department, Mr. Abboud will work to execute the campaign’s rapid response and daily messaging, as well as providing candidate briefings on daily news and breaking stories.

Alan Cobb will serve as the Director of Coalitions for the campaign, organizing and managing the numerous coalition groups that currently support, and will support, Mr. Trump for president. Previously, Mr. Cobb served in several roles for the Trump Campaign including as a Senior Advisor. Mr. Cobb managed statewide, political and issue campaigns, served as the Deputy State Director for U.S. Senators Bob Dole and U.S. Senator Sheila Frahm and served as a Campaign Advisor to the 2014 campaigns of Congressman Mike Pompeo and Senator Pat Roberts.

On the appointments, Mr. Trump stated, “As we continue to work to defeat Hillary Clinton this November, I am constantly building a superior political team. After winning the most votes in the history of a Republican primary contest, we are taking our messages to the people so that we can Make American Great Again.”

Donald Trump starts a trade war — with the Republican Party

By Sean Sullivan and Jenna JohnsonJune 30

The unusual battle between Donald Trump and much of the Republican establishment on international trade is rapidly escalating, as the presumptive GOP nominee rails against business groups and members of his own party while defenders of sweeping free-trade pacts rebuke him.The rift deepened on Thursday when Trump called out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by name for the second straight day and pilloried the North American Free Trade Agreement and the ­Trans-Pacific Partnership, two landmark trade agreements broadly supported by Republicans.“I’m messing with bad deals that we could make good,” Trump said in his speech at a shuttered manufacturing plant in Manchester, N.H. “I could make good deals. Why would somebody fight that? I mean, the U.S. Chamber fights. They said, ‘Oh, Trump wants to stop free trade.’ I don’t want to stop free trade. I love free trade, but I want to make great deals.”

The mogul’s comments followed a flurry of insults throughout the week aimed at advocates of broad trade accords, which have been championed by Republican leaders for decades as crucial engines of capitalism. Trump accused TPP backers, for example, of wanting to “rape” the United States.

For Trump, feuding with powerful business interests makes him an attractive candidate for many disaffected working-class voters, including some who have supported Democrats in the past.

But the loud dispute also risks alienating many of the Republican Party’s wealthy benefactors at a time when he is struggling to kick his long-dormant fundraising operation into gear. A stridently protectionist message could also push some moderate Main Street Republicans to support Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, in much the same way that many Republicans in the foreign policy world have done.

Many business groups, which generally favor looser trade restrictions and are traditional Republican allies, have taken sharp issue with Trump’s latest comments and appear determined to rebut them.

“While we never endorse in the presidential race, we do plan to be aggressive in presidential policy with both major party nominees,” said Scott Reed, the senior political strategist at the Chamber of Commerce. The group repudiated Trump in real time on Tuesday in a series of tweets as he delivered an address threatening to tear up trade accords and impose tariffs.

Trump has long blamed broad trade agreements for harming U.S. workers. But this week has marked a rhetorical shift as he aggressively casts members of both parties who have supported trade deals as anti-American and in league with “special interests.” For many Republicans in particular, the rhetoric amounts to an assault on core ideological beliefs that have undergirded conservative economic policy for generations.

The candidate’s arguments have also left an opening for sharp attacks by Clinton and other Democrats accusing him of hypocrisy. Trump in the past has talked favorably about outsourcing jobs overseas, and much of his Trump-branded apparel line and other products are manufactured in low-cost Asian countries.

“Donald Trump is running as an anti-Republican Republican in many ways,” said David French, senior vice president of government relations at the National Retail Federation, which like the Chamber of Commerce is not taking sides in the presidential contest. French said Trump’s commentary on trade has been disappointing.

Some business leaders are privately pessimistic that publicly fighting Trump hard on trade will be a winning proposition. His access to free media coverage through television and radio interviews presents a big obstacle to anyone standing in his way.

It also remains to be seen how and if these groups will escalate their fight beyond social media and chastising in the news media. The Chamber of Commerce, for example, is focused heavily on down-ballot contests and, given that the group primarily supports Republicans, could end up helping Trump regardless.

As Trump spoke Thursday, he stood in front of a manufacturing facility that closed in 2014, causing more than 130 workers to lose their jobs. He continued to tout his protectionist economic policies, which he has underscored since the day he launched his campaign more than a year ago and which stand at odds with many pro-free-trade statements in his past.

Trump’s repeated needling of the Chamber of Commerce, which is the nation’s largest business lobby, signaled that he has found a new favorite target. During a rally in Maine on Wednesday, Trump accused the organization of being “totally controlled by the special-interest groups.”

The mogul continued his assault on social media a few hours later, tweeting, “For reasons only they can explain, the @USChamber wants to continue our bad trade deals rather than renegotiating and making them better.”

Trump has repeatedly blamed outsourcing and big trade agreements for domestic economic decline. He has vowed to renegotiate NAFTA as president and withdraw the United States from TPP — promises many experts in both parties call unrealistic and highly risky.

But such talk has won Trump legions of fans in the economically depressed Rust Belt and other areas suffering from the effects of globalization. His allies hope it will help him compete in Ohio and Pennsylvania, two key swing states.

Trump’s repeated talk about trade is aimed in large part at undermining Clinton, whose husband signed NAFTA as president. Trump also accuses Clinton of waffling on TPP, which she praised as secretary of state but then opposed during her hard-fought primary contest with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

“The trade policies of Hillary Clinton, global financiers — and they’re all controlling her, they have 100 percent, they might as well stamp Hillary Clinton on their forehead,” he said Thursday.

Clinton and other Democrats have pushed back by pointing to the ways that Trump has benefited from the policies he now condemns. On Thursday, Clinton issued a tweet listing the countries, from Mexico to Bangladesh, where Trump-branded ties and shirts were made.

While Trump insists he is not trying to challenge free-trade principles, he has repeatedly argued that it is more important for the United States to have “fair trade” agreements. He has said that he would prefer to negotiate deals one-on-one with countries rather than enter into multi-national settlements.

Trump has repeatedly vowed to impose high tariffs — or the threat of high tariffs — to bully American companies into keeping jobs in the United States. His favorite example is Ford Motor Co., which plans to build a massive plant in Mexico. Trump has said that before he takes office he will persuade Ford to change course by threatening to charge the company a 35 percent tax on cars imported back into the United States.

Trump took a handful of questions from the audience Thursday, including one from a man who used to work at a factory that made police badges but lost that business when departments started ordering from overseas.

“What are you going to do for us?” the man asked, as the small crowd applauded.

“First of all, your story is common to thousands and thousands of companies throughout this country,” Trump said, before promising to fight currency ma­nipu­la­tion, which he says makes it impossible for U.S. companies to compete with those based in China and elsewhere.

Trump repeatedly said that while making products within the United States might be a bit more expensive, it’s worth the cost to have more jobs based here.

Another man asked Trump how he will respond to the corporate backlash to his trade policies.

“Corporations? I’m not worried about it,” Trump said, pointing out that his tax plan is “cutting business taxes way down” and that he will make it less expensive for companies to temporarily bring their money back from overseas.

“We will do things that are going to be so miraculous — and it’ll be fast. It won’t take a long period of time,” Trump said.

Morrill Tariff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an increased import tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was the twelfth of seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party, which had not yet been inaugurated, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth.[1]

It was named for its sponsor, Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, who drafted it with the advice of Pennsylvania economist Henry Charles Carey. The passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession. The Morrill Tariff raised rates to encourage industry and to foster high wages for industrial workers.[2] It replaced the low Tariff of 1857, which was written to benefit the South. Two additional tariffs sponsored by Morrill, each one higher, were passed during Abraham Lincoln‘s administration to raise urgently needed revenue during the Civil War.

The Morrill tariff inaugurated a period of continuous trade protection in the United States, a policy that remained until the adoption of the Revenue Act of 1913 (the Underwood tariff). The schedule of the Morrill Tariff and its two successor bills were retained long after the end of the Civil War.

History

Origins

A high tariff to encourage the development of domestic industry had been advocated for many years, especially by the Whig Party and its long-time leader Henry Clay. They enacted such a tariff in 1842, but in 1846 the Democrats enacted the Walker Tariff, cutting tariff rates substantially. The Democrats cut rates even further in the Tariff of 1857, which was highly favorable to the South.

Meanwhile, the Whig Party broke up, and this element of the Whig program was taken up by the new Republican Party, which ran its first national ticket in 1856. Some former Whigs from the Border States and upper South remained in Congress as “Opposition”, “Unionist”, or “American” (Know Nothing) members; they also supported higher tariffs.

The Panic of 1857 led to calls for protectionist tariff revision. Well-known economist Henry C. Carey blamed the Panic on the Tariff of 1857. His opinion was widely circulated in the high tariff (or “protectionist”) media.

Minority Ways and Means members Morrill and Henry Winter Davis (a Maryland “American”) produced the Republican proposal, an upward revision of the tariff schedule. It replaced the existing ad valorem tariff schedule with specific duties and drastically increased tariff rates on goods produced by popular “protected” industries, such as iron, textiles, and other manufactured goods. Economic historian Frank Taussig argued that in many cases, the substitution of specific duties was used to disguise the extent of the rate increases.[3] Supporters of the specific rates argued that they were necessary, though, because European exporters were routinely providing their American customers with phony invoices showing lower prices for goods than were actually paid. Specific rates made such subterfuge pointless.

However, the House took no action on either tariff bill during the 35th Congress.

The Morrill bill was passed out of committee and brought up for a floor vote near the end of first session of the Congress (December 1859 – June 1860).

The vote was on May 10, 1860; the bill passed by a vote of 105 to 64.[4]

The vote was largely but not entirely sectional. Republicans, all from the northern states, voted 89–2 for the bill. They were joined by 7 northern Democrats from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Five of these were “anti-Lecompton Democrats” (dissident Democrats who opposed the pro-slavery Lecompton constitution for Kansas).

14 northern Democrats voted against the bill.

In the Border States, 4 “Opposition” Representatives from Kentucky voted for it, as did its co-sponsor Winter of Maryland, a Maryland “Unionist”, and a Democrat from Delaware. 8 Border state Democrats and an “American” from Missouri voted no.

35 southern Democrats and 3 Oppositionists voted against it; one Oppositionist from Tennessee voted for it.

Thus the sectional breakdown was 96–15 in the north, 7–9 in the Border, and 1–39 in the south.

There were 55 abstentions, including 13 Republicans, 12 northern Democrats, 13 southern Democrats, and 8 southern “Oppositionists” and “Americans”. (The remaining Representatives were mostly “paired” with opposing Representatives who could not be present.[5]

Senate action

The Morrill bill was sent on to the Senate. However, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and so the bill was bottled up in the Finance Committee, chaired by Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia.

This insured that the Senate vote would be put off till the second session in December. It also meant that the tariff would be a prominent issue in the 1860 election.[6]

1860 election

The Republican party included a strong pro-tariff plank in its 1860 platform. They also sent prominent tariff advocates such as Morrill and Sherman to campaign in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where the tariff was popular, by touting the Morrill bill. Both Democratic candidates, John C. Breckinridge and Stephen Douglas, opposed all high tariffs and protectionism in general.[7]

Historian Reinhard H. Luthin documents the importance of the Morrill Tariff to the Republicans in the 1860 presidential election.[8] Abraham Lincoln’s record as a protectionist and support for the Morrill Tariff bill, he notes, helped him to secure support in the important electoral college state of Pennsylvania, as well as neighboring New Jersey. Lincoln carried Pennsylvania handily in November, as part of his sweep of the North.

On February 14, 1861, President-elect Lincoln told an audience in Pittsburgh that he would make a new tariff his priority in the next session if the bill did not pass by inauguration day on March 4.

Renewed Senate action

The second session of the 36th Congress began in December 1860. At first it appeared that Hunter would keep the Morrill bill tabled until the end of the term in March.

However, in December 1860 and January 1861, seven southern states declared secession, and their low-tariff Senators withdrew. Republicans took control of the Senate in February, and Hunter lost his hold on the Finance Committee.

Meanwhile, the Treasury was in financial crisis, with less than $500,000 on hand and millions in unpaid bills. The Union urgently needed new revenue. A recent historian concludes, “the impetus for revising the tariff arose as an attempt to augment revenue, stave off ‘ruin,’ and address the accumulating debt.”[9]

The Morrill bill was brought to the Senate floor for a vote on February 20, and passed 25 to 14. The vote was split almost completely down party lines. It was supported by 24 Republicans and Democrat William Bigler of Pennsylvania. It was opposed by 10 Southern Democrats, 2 Northern Democrats, and 2 Far West Democrats. 12 Senators abstained, including 3 Northern Democrats, 1 California Democrat, 5 Southern Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 1 Unionist from Maryland.[10]

There were some minor amendments related to the tariffs on tea and coffee, which required a conference committee with the House, but these were resolved and the final bill was approved by unanimous consent on March 2.

Though a Democrat himself, outgoing President James Buchanan favored the bill because of the interests of his home state, Pennsylvania. He signed the bill into law as one of his last acts in office.

Adoption and amendments

The Morrill Tariff took effect one month after it was signed into law. Besides setting tariff rates, the bill altered and restricted the Warehousing Act of 1846.

The Morrill Tariff was drafted and passed the House before the Civil War began or was even expected, and was passed by the Senate almost unchanged. Thus it should not be considered “Civil War” legislation.[11]

In fact, the Tariff proved to be too low for the revenue needs of the Civil War, and was quickly supplanted by the Second Morrill Tariff, or Revenue Act of 1861, later that fall.[12]

Impact

In its first year of operation, the Morrill Tariff increased the effective rate collected on dutiable imports by approximately 70%. In 1860 American tariff rates were among the lowest in the world and also at historical lows by 19th century standards, the average rate for 1857 through 1860 being around 17% overall (ad valorem), or 21% on dutiable items only. The Morrill Tariff immediately raised these averages to about 26% overall or 36% on dutiable items, and further increases by 1865 left the comparable rates at 38% and 48%. Although higher than in the immediate antebellum period, these rates were still significantly lower than between 1825 and 1830, when rates had sometimes been over 50%.[13]

The United States needed $3 billion to pay for the immense armies and fleets raised to fight the Civil War — over $400 million just in 1862. The chief source of Federal revenue had been the tariff revenues. Therefore, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, though a long-time free-trader, worked with Morrill to pass a second tariff bill in summer 1861, raising rates another 10 points in order to generate more revenues.[14] These subsequent bills were primarily revenue driven to meet the war’s needs, though they enjoyed the support of protectionists such as Carey, who again assisted Morrill in the bill’s drafting.

However, the tariff played only a modest role in financing the war. It was far less important than other measures, such as $2.8 billion in bond sales and some printing of Greenbacks. Customs revenue from tariffs totaled $345 million from 1861 through 1865, or 43% of all federal tax revenue, while military spending totalled $3,065 million.[15]

Reception abroad

The Morrill Tariff was met with intense hostility in Britain, where the free trade movement dominated public opinion. Southern diplomats and agents sought to use British ire towards the Morrill Tariff in order to garner sympathy, with the aim of obtaining British recognition for the Confederacy.[16] The new tariff schedule heavily penalized British iron, clothing, and manufactured exports with new taxes and sparked public outcry from many British politicians. The expectation of high tax rates probably caused British shippers to hasten their deliveries before the new rates took effect in the early summer of 1861. When complaints were heard from London, Congress counterattacked. The Senate Finance Committee chairman snapped, “What right has a foreign country to make any question about what we choose to do?”[17]

When the American Civil War broke out in 1861, British public opinion was sympathetic to the Confederacy, in part because of lingering agitation over the tariff. As one diplomatic historian has explained, the Morrill Tariff:[18]

“Not unnaturally gave great displeasure to England. It greatly lessened the profits of the American markets to English manufacturers and merchants, to a degree which caused serious mercantile distress in that country. Moreover, the British nation was then in the first flush of enthusiasm over free trade, and, under the lead of extremists like Cobden and Gladstone, was inclined to regard a protective tariff as essentially and intrinsically immoral, scarcely less so than larceny or murder. Indeed, the tariff was seriously regarded as comparable in offensiveness with slavery itself, and Englishmen were inclined to condemn the North for the one as much as the South for the other. “We do not like slavery,” said Palmerston to Adams, “but we want cotton, and we dislike very much your Morrill tariff.”

If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils… [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

Communist philosopher Karl Marx was among the few writers in Britain who saw slavery as the major cause of the war. Marx wrote extensively in the British press and served as a London correspondent for several North American newspapers including Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune. Marx reacted to those who blamed the war on Morrill’s bill, arguing instead that slavery had induced secession and that the tariff was just a pretext. Marx wrote, in October 1861:

Naturally, in America everyone knew that from 1846 to 1861 a free trade system prevailed, and that Representative Morrill carried his protectionist tariff through Congress only in 1861, after the rebellion had already broken out. Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place.[20]

Legacy

According to historian Heather Cox Richardson, Morrill intended to offer protection to both the usual manufacturing recipients and a broad group of agricultural interests. The purpose was to appease interests beyond the northeast, which traditionally supported protection. For the first time protection was extended to every major farm product.

Planning to distribute the benefits of a tariff to all sectors of the economy, and also hoping to broaden support for his party, Morrill rejected the traditional system of protection by proposing tariff duties on agricultural, mining, and fishing products, as well as on manufactures. Sugar, wool, flaxseed, hides, beef, pork, corn, grain, hemp, wool, and minerals would all be protected by the Morrill Tariff. The duty on sugar might well be expected to appease Southerners opposed to tariffs, and, notably, wool and flaxseed production were growing industries in the West. The new tariff bill also would protect coal, lead, copper, zinc, and other minerals, all of which the new northwestern states were beginning to produce. The Eastern fishing industry would receive a duty on dried, pickled, and salted fish. “In adjusting the details of a tariff,” Morrill explained with a rhetorical flourish in his introduction of the bill, “I would treat agriculture, manufactures, mining, and commerce, as I would our whole people—as members of one family, all entitled to equal favor, and no one to be made the beast of burden to carry the packs of others.”[21]

According to Taussig, “Morrill and the other supporters of the act of 1861 declared that their intention was simply to restore the rates of 1846.” However, he also gives reason to suspect that the bill’s motives were intended to put high rates of protection on iron and wool to attract states in the West and in Pennsylvania:

“The important change which they (the sponsors) proposed to make from the provisions of the tariff of 1846 was to substitute specific for ad-valorem duties. Such a change from ad-valorem to specific duties is in itself by no means objectionable; but it has usually been made a pretext on the part of protectionists for a considerable increase in the actual duties paid. When protectionists make a change of this kind, they almost invariably make the specific duties higher than the ad-valorem duties for which they are supposed to be an equivalent…The Morrill tariff formed no exception to the usual course of things in this respect. The specific duties which it established were in many cases considerably above the ad-valorem duties of 1846. The most important direct changes made by the act of 1861 were in the increased duties on iron and on wool, by which it was hoped to attach to the Republican party Pennsylvania and some of the Western States”[22]

Henry Carey, who assisted Morrill while drafting the bill and was one of its most vocal supporters, strongly emphasized its importance to the Republican Party in his January 2, 1861 letter to Lincoln. Carey told the President-Elect “the success of your administration is wholly dependent upon the passage of the Morrill bill at the present session.” According to Carey:

“With it, the people will be relieved — your term will commence with a rising wave of prosperity — the Treasury will be filled and the party that elected you will be increased and strengthened. Without it, there will be much suffering among the people — much dissatisfaction with their duties — much borrowing on the part of the Government — & very much trouble among the Republican Party when the people shall come to vote two years hence. There is but one way to make the Party a permanent one, & that is, by the prompt repudiation to the free trade system.”

The Morrill tariff bill came nearer than any other to meeting the double requirement of providing ample revenue for the support of the government and of rendering the proper protection to home industries. No national taxes, except duties on imported goods, were imposed at the time of its passage. The Civil War changed all this, reducing importations and adding tenfold to the revenue required. The government was justified in increasing existing rates of duty, and in adding to the dutiable list all articles imported, thus including articles of prime necessity and of universal use. In addition to these duties, it was compelled to add taxes on all articles of home production, on incomes not required for the supply of actual wants, and, especially, on articles of doubtful necessity, such as spirits, tobacco and beer. These taxes were absolutely required to meet expenditures for the army and navy, for the interest on the war debts and just pensions to those who were disabled by the war, and to their widows and orphans.[23]

Secession and tariffs

The Morrill Tariff and the secession movement

The Morrill tariff was adopted against the backdrop of the secession movement, and provided an issue for secessionist agitation in some southern states. The law’s critics compared it to the 1828 Tariff of Abominations that sparked the Nullification Crisis, although its average rate was significantly lower.

Slavery dominated the secession debate in the southern states,[24] but the Morrill Tariff was addressed in the conventions of Georgia and South Carolina.

Robert Barnwell Rhett similarly railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention. Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding State19s, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.[25]

The Morrill Tariff played less prominently elsewhere in the South. In some portions of Virginia, secessionists promised a new protective tariff to assist the state’s fledgling industries.[26]

In the North, enforcement of the Morrill Tariff contributed to support for the Union cause among industrialists and merchant interests. Speaking of this class, the abolitionist Orestes Brownson derisively remarked that “the Morrill Tariff moved them more than the fall of Sumter.”[27] In one such example the New York Times, which had previously opposed Morrill’s bill on free trade grounds, editorialized that the tariff imbalance would bring commercial ruin to the North and urged its suspension until the secession crisis passed. “We have imposed high duties on our commerce at the very moment the seceding states are inviting commerce to their ports by low duties.”[28] As secession became more evident and the fledgling Confederacy adopted a much lower tariff of its own, the paper urged military action to enforce the Morrill Tariff in the Southern states.[29]

Historiography

Historians, James Huston notes, have been baffled by the role of high tariffs in general and have offered multiple conflicting interpretations over the years. (Low tariffs, all historians agree, were noncontroversial and were needed to fund the federal government.) One school of thought says the Republicans were the willing tools of would-be monopolists. A second schools says the Republicans truly believed tariffs would promote nationalism and prosperity for everyone along with balanced growth in every region (as opposed to growth only in the cotton South). A third school emphasizes the undeniable importance of the tariff in cementing party loyalty, especially in industrial states. Another approach emphasizes that factory workers were eager for high tariffs because it protected their high wages from European competition.[30]

Charles A. Beard argued in the 1920s that very long-term economic issues were critical, with the pro-tariff industrial Northeast forming a coalition with the anti-tariff agrarian Midwest against the plantation South. According to Luthin in the 1940s, “Historians are not unanimous as to the relative importance which Southern fear and hatred of a high tariff had in causing the secession of the slave states.”[31] However, none of the statesmen seeking a compromise in 1860-61 that would avert the war ever suggested the tariff might be the key to a solution, or might be a cause of the secession.[32] Beginning in the 1950s, historians moved away from the Beard thesis of economic causality. In its place, historians led by Richard Hofstadter began to emphasize the social causes of the war, centered around the issue of slavery. The Beard thesis has enjoyed a recent revival among economists, pro-Confederate historians, and neo-Beardian scholars. A 2002 study by economists Robert McGuire and T. Norman Van Cott concluded:

A de facto constitutional mandate that tariffs lie on the lower end of the Laffer relationship means that the Confederacy went beyond simply observing that a given tax revenue is obtainable with a “high” and “low” tax rate, a la Alexander Hamilton and others. Indeed, the constitutional action suggests that the tariff issue may in fact have been even more important in the North–South tensions that led to the Civil War than many economists and historians currently believe.”

Rather than contributing to secession, Marc-William Palen notes how the tariff was only able to pass through Congress following the secession of Southern states. Thus, secession itself allowed for the bill’s passage, rather than the other way around.[33]Allan Nevinsand James M. McPherson downplay the significance of the tariff, arguing that it was peripheral to the issue of slavery. They note that slavery dominated the secessionist declarations, speeches, and pamphlets. Nevins also points to the argument of Alexander Stephens, who disputed Toombs’ claims about the severity of the Morrill tariff. Though initially a unionist, Stephens would later cite slavery as the “cornerstone” reason behind his support of the secessionist cause.[34]

Story 1: Tea Party Movement Needs To Form New Political Party — Constitutional Independent Party — Recovering Democrats, Republicans and Independents Welcome And Career Politicians Are Not Welcome — Retire — Winning In 2024 House, Senate and Presidency — End The Two Party Income Tax Tyranny of Democrats and Republicans — Tea Party Movement + Fair Tax Less = Landslide Victories — Faith, Family, Friends, Freedom ~ First — Videos

Two Political Parties or ONE? Andrew Napolitano Freedom Watch

The History of the Tea Party in Four Minutes

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

Americas Political Parties

Third Parties in America

Third parties are the underpants gnomes of American politics

To Get a Third Party on the Debate Stage: Eric Charles at TEDxPSU

War Party : Documentary on the Neoconservative War Party

Gutfeld Blasts ‘Newsroom’ as ‘Liberal Fantasy’ for Vilifying Tea Party

Trump supporters have a distinct approach to global affairs, according to Pew Research Center surveys conducted in March and April. Fully 84% of those who support Trump for the GOP presidential nomination favor building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. That compares with 56% of Republican voters who preferred another candidate for the Republican nomination – those who supported Ted Cruz or John Kasich, who last week suspended their presidential campaigns, or volunteered someone else.

Story 1: Breaking News — Part 2 of 3, Trump’s Timid Tax Tweak — Does Not Abolish Income Taxes or IRS and Does Not Abolish Regressive Payroll Taxes For Social Security and Medicare — Trump Wrong on Economic Incentives — Could Have Been A Contender — Carson (Flat Tax), Cruz (Flat Tax) , Paul (Flat Tax), and Huckabee (FairTax) — All Have Better Tax Plans — Trump Is Just Another Progressive Country Club “Rockefeller” Republican — Dump Trump! — Fair Tax Less Is The Answer To Making America Great Again — Videos

Acceptance Speech as the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

~Senator Barry Goldwater

Two of Ten planks of Karl Marx’s

Communist Manifesto

ARE Americans practicing Communism?

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State “income” taxes. We call it “paying your fair share”.

The New Road to Serfdom: Lessons to Learn from European Policy

TAX REFORM THAT WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Too few Americans are working, too many jobs have been shipped overseas, and too many middle class families cannot make ends meet. This tax plan directly meets these challenges with four simple goals:

Tax relief for middle class Americans: In order to achieve the American dream, let people keep more money in their pockets and increase after-tax wages.

Simplify the tax code to reduce the headaches Americans face in preparing their taxes and let everyone keep more of their money.

Grow the American economy by discouraging corporate inversions, adding a huge number of new jobs, and making America globally competitive again.

Doesn’t add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large.

The Trump Tax Plan Achieves These Goals

If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, “I win,” those who would otherwise owe income taxes will save an average of nearly $1,000 each.

All other Americans will get a simpler tax code with four brackets – 0%, 10%, 20% and 25% – instead of the current seven. This new tax code eliminates the marriage penalty and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II.

No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. This lower rate makes corporate inversions unnecessary by making America’s tax rate one of the best in the world.

No family will have to pay the death tax. You earned and saved that money for your family, not the government. You paid taxes on it when you earned it.

The Trump Tax Plan Is Revenue Neutral

The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:

Reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich.

A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate, followed by an end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad.

Reducing or eliminating corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income. We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business interest expenses.

DETAILS OF DONALD J. TRUMP’S TAX PLAN

America needs a bold, simple and achievable plan based on conservative economic principles. This plan does that with needed tax relief for all Americans, especially the working poor and middle class, pro-growth tax reform for all sizes of businesses, and fiscally responsible steps to ensure this plan does not add to our enormous debt and deficit.

This plan simplifies the tax code by taking nearly 50% of current filers off the income tax rolls entirely and reducing the number of tax brackets from seven to four for everyone else. This plan also reduces or eliminates loopholes used by the very rich and special interests made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rates on individuals and companies.

The Trump Tax Plan: A Simpler Tax Code For All Americans

When the income tax was first introduced, just one percent of Americans had to pay it. It was never intended as a tax most Americans would pay. The Trump plan eliminates the income tax for over 73 million households. 42 million households that currently file complex forms to determine they don’t owe any income taxes will now file a one page form saving them time, stress, uncertainty and an average of $110 in preparation costs. Over 31 million households get the same simplification and keep on average nearly $1,000 of their hard-earned money.

For those Americans who will still pay the income tax, the tax rates will go from the current seven brackets to four simpler, fairer brackets that eliminate the marriage penalty and the AMT while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II:

Income Tax Rate

Long Term Cap Gains/ Dividends Rate

Single Filers

Married Filers

Heads of Household

0%

0%

$0 to $25,000

$0 to $50,000

$0 to $37,500

10%

0%

$25,001 to $50,000

$50,001 to $100,000

$37,501 to $75,000

20%

15%

$50,001 to $150,000

$100,001 to $300,000

$75,001 to $225,000

25%

20%

$150,001 and up

$300,001 and up

$225,001 and up

With this huge reduction in rates, many of the current exemptions and deductions will become unnecessary or redundant. Those within the 10% bracket will keep all or most of their current deductions. Those within the 20% bracket will keep more than half of their current deductions. Those within the 25% bracket will keep fewer deductions. Charitable giving and mortgage interest deductions will remain unchanged for all taxpayers.

Too many companies – from great American brands to innovative startups – are leaving America, either directly or through corporate inversions. The Democrats want to outlaw inversions, but that will never work. Companies leaving is not the disease, it is the symptom. Politicians in Washington have let America fall from the best corporate tax rate in the industrialized world in the 1980’s (thanks to Ronald Reagan) to the worst rate in the industrialized world. That is unacceptable. Under the Trump plan, America will compete with the world and win by cutting the corporate tax rate to 15%, taking our rate from one of the worst to one of the best.

This lower tax rate cannot be for big business alone; it needs to help the small businesses that are the true engine of our economy. Right now, freelancers, sole proprietors, unincorporated small businesses and pass-through entities are taxed at the high personal income tax rates. This treatment stifles small businesses. It also stifles tax reform because efforts to reduce loopholes and deductions available to the very rich and special interests end up hitting small businesses and job creators as well. The Trump plan addresses this challenge head on with a new business income tax rate within the personal income tax code that matches the 15% corporate tax rate to help these businesses, entrepreneurs and freelancers grow and prosper.

These lower rates will provide a tremendous stimulus for the economy – significant GDP growth, a huge number of new jobs and an increase in after-tax wages for workers.

The Trump Tax Plan Ends The Unfair Death Tax

The death tax punishes families for achieving the American dream. Therefore, the Trump plan eliminates the death tax.

The Trump Tax Plan Is Fiscally Responsible

The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:

Reducing or eliminating deductions and loopholes available to the very rich, starting by steepening the curve of the Personal Exemption Phaseout and the Pease Limitation on itemized deductions. The Trump plan also phases out the tax exemption on life insurance interest for high-income earners, ends the current tax treatment of carried interest for speculative partnerships that do not grow businesses or create jobs and are not risking their own capital, and reduces or eliminates other loopholes for the very rich and special interests. These reductions and eliminations will not harm the economy or hurt the middle class. Because the Trump plan introduces a new business income rate within the personal income tax code, they will not harm small businesses either.

A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate. Since we are making America’s corporate tax rate globally competitive, it is only fair that corporations help make that move fiscally responsible. U.S.-owned corporations have as much as $2.5 trillion in cash sitting overseas. Some companies have been leaving cash overseas as a tax maneuver. Under this plan, they can bring their cash home and put it to work in America while benefitting from the newly-lowered corporate tax rate that is globally competitive and no longer requires parking cash overseas. Other companies have cash overseas for specific business units or activities. They can leave that cash overseas, but they will still have to pay the one-time repatriation fee.

An end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad. Corporations will no longer be allowed to defer taxes on income earned abroad, but the foreign tax credit will remain in place because no company should face double taxation.

Reducing or eliminating some corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income. We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business interest expenses.

Trump Plan Cuts Taxes for Millions

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump unveiled an ambitious tax plan Monday that he says would eliminate income taxes for millions of households, lower the tax rate on all businesses to 15% and change tax treatment of companies’ overseas earnings.

Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25%, compared with the current 39.6% rate.

Many middle-income households would have a lower tax rate under Mr. Trump’s proposal, but because high-income households generally pay income tax at much higher rates, his proposed across-the-board rate cut could have a positive impact on them, too. For example, an analysis of Jeb Bush’s plan—taxing individuals’ incomes at no more than 28%—by the business-backed Tax Foundation found that the biggest percentage winners in after-tax income would be the top 1% of earners.

Mr. Trump’s plan appears designed to help him, as the GOP front-runner, cement his standing as a populist—though that message is complicated by the fact that the billionaire, like other Republican leaders, would eliminate the estate tax.

READ MORE ON CAPITAL JOURNAL

Capital Journal is WSJ.com’s home for politics, policy and national security news.

“My plan will bring sanity, common sense and simplification to our country’s catastrophic tax code,” Mr. Trump said in an interview. “It will create jobs and incentives of all kinds while simultaneously growing the economy.”

But Mr. Trump will face a challenge in convincing skeptics that his aggressive tax cuts can be implemented without adding to the federal deficit.

To pay for the proposed tax benefits, the Trump plan would eliminate or reduce deductions and loopholes to high-income taxpayers, and would curb some deductions and other breaks for middle-class taxpayers by capping the level of individual deductions, a politically dicey proposition. Mr. Trump also would end the “carried interest” tax break, which allows many investment-fund managers to pay lower taxes on much of their compensation.

A significant revenue gain would come from a one-time tax on overseas profits that could encourage U.S. multinational corporations to return an estimated $2.1 trillion in cash now sitting offshore, largely to avoid U.S. taxes. His proposal would impose a mandatory 10% tax on all of that money, even if the money stays overseas, but allow a few years for the tax to be paid. The Trump campaign estimates that many companies would choose to bring their money back home, boosting jobs and investment in the U.S.

Mr. Trump also would impose an immediate tax on overseas earnings of American corporations; currently, such tax payments can be deferred. All told, the campaign says the plan would be revenue neutral—neither raising nor lowering federal revenues—by the third year and then begin adding revenue.

With the tax plan’s release, Mr. Trump is moving to quell criticism that his campaign has been more style and less substance. This tax proposal follows his well-known immigration plan in the summer and one on gun rights last week.

Mr. Trump saves some money and fiscal headaches by skipping some of the big but complicated and costly changes that other candidates have embraced, such as business-expensing breaks and so-called territorial taxation for multinational corporations.

On the individual side, Mr. Trump would consolidate the current seven rates to four, of 0%, 10%, 20% and 25%. Those changes alone would exempt all married couples making $50,000 or less from the income tax, as well as singles making $25,000 or less.

The 10% bracket would apply to incomes from $50,000 to $100,000 for a married couple; the current 10% bracket has a ceiling of $18,450. The new 25% top bracket would apply to married couples’ incomes in excess of $300,000, which currently are subject to rates as high as 39.6%. Mr. Trump also would cut the top capital gains rate to 20%, from the current 23.8%. And he would eliminate the alternative minimum tax.

But the candidate doesn’t propose to end taxation of individuals’ investment income, as some other Republicans propose, nor would he expand the standard deduction, child-credit and other middle-class breaks as some other GOP candidates have suggested.

For businesses, Mr. Trump’s 15% rate is among the lowest that have been proposed so far. Rand Paul has proposed a 14.5% flat-tax rate for all types of income. Marco Rubio, another candidate with a detailed plan, would tax all business income at no more than 25%. Mr. Bush has proposed a 20% top corporate rate. The current top corporate tax rate is 35%, and small business income is subject to rates of as much as 39.6% (although many small businesses pay out a lot of their profits as lower-taxed dividends or capital gains). The campaign argues the rate would be among the lowest among industrialized nations, giving U.S. companies an edge to compete.

The lower corporate rates would provide “a tremendous stimulus for the economy,” the campaign’s plan argues. Mr. Trump would not, however, allow businesses to expense all their new equipment purchases, as some other Republicans do.

The plan proposes to simplify tax filing for many lower- to middle-income households. The plan says that some 42 million households that currently file tax forms to establish that they don’t owe any federal income tax now will be able to file their returns on a single page.

The 31 million households that have been paying some taxes but now won’t have any tax liability can use the same single-page, and keep an average of $1,000 in tax savings, the Trump campaign says. Today, 36% of American households today pay no income taxes, and that number would grow to 50%.

The Trump plan would raise revenues in at least a couple of significant ways. It would limit the value of individual deductions, with middle-class households keeping all or most of their deductions, higher-income taxpayers keeping around half of theirs, and the very wealthy losing a significant chunk of theirs. It also would wipe out many corporate deductions.

All taxpayers would keep their current deductions for mortgage-interest on their homes and charitable giving.

The plan also proposes capping the amount of interest payments that businesses can deduct now, a change phased in over a long period, and would impose a corporate tax on future foreign earnings of American multinationals.

ARE Americans practicing Communism?Read the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto to discover the truth and learn how to know your enemy…

Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifesto… The following brief presents the original ten planks within theCommunist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart for each of the planks. From comparison it’s clear MOST Americans have by myths, fraud and deception under the color of law by their own politicians in both the Republican and Democratic and parties, been transformed into Communists.

Another thing to remember, Karl Marx in creating the Communist Manifesto designed these planks AS A TEST to determine whether a society has become communist or not. If they are all in effect and in force, then the people ARE practicing communists.

Communism, by any other name is still communism, and is VERY VERY destructive to the individual and to the society!!

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are…

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State “income” taxes. We call it “paying your fair share”.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc…).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver’s licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read “controlled or subsidized” rather than “owned”… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920’s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. Americans are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, but are actually “government force-tax-funded schools ” Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education” . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like “majority rules”, and “pay your fair share”. WHERE are the words “fair share” in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is “fair share” even suggested !! The philosophical concept of “fair share” comes from the Communist maxim, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. … America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC … Teaching ourselves and others how to “fish” to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be “needy”… Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

Do changing words, change the end result? … By using different words, is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the united States of America?????

The people (politicians) who believe in the SOCIALISTIC and COMMUNISTIC concepts, especially those who pass more and more laws implementing these slavery ideas, are traitors to their oath of office and to the Constitution of the united States of America… KNOW YOUR ENEMY …Remove the enemy from within and from among us.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN, the only political party in America that still firmly supports and diligently abides by the Constitution of the united States of America.

Story 1: Breaking News — Part 1 of 3, Trump’s Timid Tax Tweak — Does Not Abolish Income Taxes or IRS and Does Not Abolish Regressive Payroll Taxes For Social Security and Medicare — Trump Wrong on Economic Incentives — Could Have Been A Contender — Carson (Flat Tax), Cruz (Flat Tax) , Paul (Flat Tax), and Huckabee (FairTax) — All Have Better Tax Plans — Trump Is Just Another Progressive Country Club “Rockefeller” Republican — Dump Trump! — Fair Tax Less Is The Answer To Making America Great Again — Videos

Acceptance Speech as the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

~Senator Barry Goldwater

Two of Ten planks of Karl Marx’s

Communist Manifesto

ARE Americans practicing Communism?

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State “income” taxes. We call it “paying your fair share”.

TAX REFORM THAT WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Too few Americans are working, too many jobs have been shipped overseas, and too many middle class families cannot make ends meet. This tax plan directly meets these challenges with four simple goals:

Tax relief for middle class Americans: In order to achieve the American dream, let people keep more money in their pockets and increase after-tax wages.

Simplify the tax code to reduce the headaches Americans face in preparing their taxes and let everyone keep more of their money.

Grow the American economy by discouraging corporate inversions, adding a huge number of new jobs, and making America globally competitive again.

Doesn’t add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large.

The Trump Tax Plan Achieves These Goals

If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, “I win,” those who would otherwise owe income taxes will save an average of nearly $1,000 each.

All other Americans will get a simpler tax code with four brackets – 0%, 10%, 20% and 25% – instead of the current seven. This new tax code eliminates the marriage penalty and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II.

No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. This lower rate makes corporate inversions unnecessary by making America’s tax rate one of the best in the world.

No family will have to pay the death tax. You earned and saved that money for your family, not the government. You paid taxes on it when you earned it.

The Trump Tax Plan Is Revenue Neutral

The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:

Reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich.

A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate, followed by an end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad.

Reducing or eliminating corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income. We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business interest expenses.

DETAILS OF DONALD J. TRUMP’S TAX PLAN

America needs a bold, simple and achievable plan based on conservative economic principles. This plan does that with needed tax relief for all Americans, especially the working poor and middle class, pro-growth tax reform for all sizes of businesses, and fiscally responsible steps to ensure this plan does not add to our enormous debt and deficit.

This plan simplifies the tax code by taking nearly 50% of current filers off the income tax rolls entirely and reducing the number of tax brackets from seven to four for everyone else. This plan also reduces or eliminates loopholes used by the very rich and special interests made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rates on individuals and companies.

The Trump Tax Plan: A Simpler Tax Code For All Americans

When the income tax was first introduced, just one percent of Americans had to pay it. It was never intended as a tax most Americans would pay. The Trump plan eliminates the income tax for over 73 million households. 42 million households that currently file complex forms to determine they don’t owe any income taxes will now file a one page form saving them time, stress, uncertainty and an average of $110 in preparation costs. Over 31 million households get the same simplification and keep on average nearly $1,000 of their hard-earned money.

For those Americans who will still pay the income tax, the tax rates will go from the current seven brackets to four simpler, fairer brackets that eliminate the marriage penalty and the AMT while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II:

Income Tax Rate

Long Term Cap Gains/ Dividends Rate

Single Filers

Married Filers

Heads of Household

0%

0%

$0 to $25,000

$0 to $50,000

$0 to $37,500

10%

0%

$25,001 to $50,000

$50,001 to $100,000

$37,501 to $75,000

20%

15%

$50,001 to $150,000

$100,001 to $300,000

$75,001 to $225,000

25%

20%

$150,001 and up

$300,001 and up

$225,001 and up

With this huge reduction in rates, many of the current exemptions and deductions will become unnecessary or redundant. Those within the 10% bracket will keep all or most of their current deductions. Those within the 20% bracket will keep more than half of their current deductions. Those within the 25% bracket will keep fewer deductions. Charitable giving and mortgage interest deductions will remain unchanged for all taxpayers.

Too many companies – from great American brands to innovative startups – are leaving America, either directly or through corporate inversions. The Democrats want to outlaw inversions, but that will never work. Companies leaving is not the disease, it is the symptom. Politicians in Washington have let America fall from the best corporate tax rate in the industrialized world in the 1980’s (thanks to Ronald Reagan) to the worst rate in the industrialized world. That is unacceptable. Under the Trump plan, America will compete with the world and win by cutting the corporate tax rate to 15%, taking our rate from one of the worst to one of the best.

This lower tax rate cannot be for big business alone; it needs to help the small businesses that are the true engine of our economy. Right now, freelancers, sole proprietors, unincorporated small businesses and pass-through entities are taxed at the high personal income tax rates. This treatment stifles small businesses. It also stifles tax reform because efforts to reduce loopholes and deductions available to the very rich and special interests end up hitting small businesses and job creators as well. The Trump plan addresses this challenge head on with a new business income tax rate within the personal income tax code that matches the 15% corporate tax rate to help these businesses, entrepreneurs and freelancers grow and prosper.

These lower rates will provide a tremendous stimulus for the economy – significant GDP growth, a huge number of new jobs and an increase in after-tax wages for workers.

The Trump Tax Plan Ends The Unfair Death Tax

The death tax punishes families for achieving the American dream. Therefore, the Trump plan eliminates the death tax.

The Trump Tax Plan Is Fiscally Responsible

The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:

Reducing or eliminating deductions and loopholes available to the very rich, starting by steepening the curve of the Personal Exemption Phaseout and the Pease Limitation on itemized deductions. The Trump plan also phases out the tax exemption on life insurance interest for high-income earners, ends the current tax treatment of carried interest for speculative partnerships that do not grow businesses or create jobs and are not risking their own capital, and reduces or eliminates other loopholes for the very rich and special interests. These reductions and eliminations will not harm the economy or hurt the middle class. Because the Trump plan introduces a new business income rate within the personal income tax code, they will not harm small businesses either.

A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate. Since we are making America’s corporate tax rate globally competitive, it is only fair that corporations help make that move fiscally responsible. U.S.-owned corporations have as much as $2.5 trillion in cash sitting overseas. Some companies have been leaving cash overseas as a tax maneuver. Under this plan, they can bring their cash home and put it to work in America while benefitting from the newly-lowered corporate tax rate that is globally competitive and no longer requires parking cash overseas. Other companies have cash overseas for specific business units or activities. They can leave that cash overseas, but they will still have to pay the one-time repatriation fee.

An end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad. Corporations will no longer be allowed to defer taxes on income earned abroad, but the foreign tax credit will remain in place because no company should face double taxation.

Reducing or eliminating some corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income. We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business interest expenses.

Trump Plan Cuts Taxes for Millions

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump unveiled an ambitious tax plan Monday that he says would eliminate income taxes for millions of households, lower the tax rate on all businesses to 15% and change tax treatment of companies’ overseas earnings.

Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25%, compared with the current 39.6% rate.

Many middle-income households would have a lower tax rate under Mr. Trump’s proposal, but because high-income households generally pay income tax at much higher rates, his proposed across-the-board rate cut could have a positive impact on them, too. For example, an analysis of Jeb Bush’s plan—taxing individuals’ incomes at no more than 28%—by the business-backed Tax Foundation found that the biggest percentage winners in after-tax income would be the top 1% of earners.

Mr. Trump’s plan appears designed to help him, as the GOP front-runner, cement his standing as a populist—though that message is complicated by the fact that the billionaire, like other Republican leaders, would eliminate the estate tax.

READ MORE ON CAPITAL JOURNAL

Capital Journal is WSJ.com’s home for politics, policy and national security news.

“My plan will bring sanity, common sense and simplification to our country’s catastrophic tax code,” Mr. Trump said in an interview. “It will create jobs and incentives of all kinds while simultaneously growing the economy.”

But Mr. Trump will face a challenge in convincing skeptics that his aggressive tax cuts can be implemented without adding to the federal deficit.

To pay for the proposed tax benefits, the Trump plan would eliminate or reduce deductions and loopholes to high-income taxpayers, and would curb some deductions and other breaks for middle-class taxpayers by capping the level of individual deductions, a politically dicey proposition. Mr. Trump also would end the “carried interest” tax break, which allows many investment-fund managers to pay lower taxes on much of their compensation.

A significant revenue gain would come from a one-time tax on overseas profits that could encourage U.S. multinational corporations to return an estimated $2.1 trillion in cash now sitting offshore, largely to avoid U.S. taxes. His proposal would impose a mandatory 10% tax on all of that money, even if the money stays overseas, but allow a few years for the tax to be paid. The Trump campaign estimates that many companies would choose to bring their money back home, boosting jobs and investment in the U.S.

Mr. Trump also would impose an immediate tax on overseas earnings of American corporations; currently, such tax payments can be deferred. All told, the campaign says the plan would be revenue neutral—neither raising nor lowering federal revenues—by the third year and then begin adding revenue.

With the tax plan’s release, Mr. Trump is moving to quell criticism that his campaign has been more style and less substance. This tax proposal follows his well-known immigration plan in the summer and one on gun rights last week.

Mr. Trump saves some money and fiscal headaches by skipping some of the big but complicated and costly changes that other candidates have embraced, such as business-expensing breaks and so-called territorial taxation for multinational corporations.

On the individual side, Mr. Trump would consolidate the current seven rates to four, of 0%, 10%, 20% and 25%. Those changes alone would exempt all married couples making $50,000 or less from the income tax, as well as singles making $25,000 or less.

The 10% bracket would apply to incomes from $50,000 to $100,000 for a married couple; the current 10% bracket has a ceiling of $18,450. The new 25% top bracket would apply to married couples’ incomes in excess of $300,000, which currently are subject to rates as high as 39.6%. Mr. Trump also would cut the top capital gains rate to 20%, from the current 23.8%. And he would eliminate the alternative minimum tax.

But the candidate doesn’t propose to end taxation of individuals’ investment income, as some other Republicans propose, nor would he expand the standard deduction, child-credit and other middle-class breaks as some other GOP candidates have suggested.

For businesses, Mr. Trump’s 15% rate is among the lowest that have been proposed so far. Rand Paul has proposed a 14.5% flat-tax rate for all types of income. Marco Rubio, another candidate with a detailed plan, would tax all business income at no more than 25%. Mr. Bush has proposed a 20% top corporate rate. The current top corporate tax rate is 35%, and small business income is subject to rates of as much as 39.6% (although many small businesses pay out a lot of their profits as lower-taxed dividends or capital gains). The campaign argues the rate would be among the lowest among industrialized nations, giving U.S. companies an edge to compete.

The lower corporate rates would provide “a tremendous stimulus for the economy,” the campaign’s plan argues. Mr. Trump would not, however, allow businesses to expense all their new equipment purchases, as some other Republicans do.

The plan proposes to simplify tax filing for many lower- to middle-income households. The plan says that some 42 million households that currently file tax forms to establish that they don’t owe any federal income tax now will be able to file their returns on a single page.

The 31 million households that have been paying some taxes but now won’t have any tax liability can use the same single-page, and keep an average of $1,000 in tax savings, the Trump campaign says. Today, 36% of American households today pay no income taxes, and that number would grow to 50%.

The Trump plan would raise revenues in at least a couple of significant ways. It would limit the value of individual deductions, with middle-class households keeping all or most of their deductions, higher-income taxpayers keeping around half of theirs, and the very wealthy losing a significant chunk of theirs. It also would wipe out many corporate deductions.

All taxpayers would keep their current deductions for mortgage-interest on their homes and charitable giving.

The plan also proposes capping the amount of interest payments that businesses can deduct now, a change phased in over a long period, and would impose a corporate tax on future foreign earnings of American multinationals.

ARE Americans practicing Communism?Read the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto to discover the truth and learn how to know your enemy…

Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifesto… The following brief presents the original ten planks within theCommunist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart for each of the planks. From comparison it’s clear MOST Americans have by myths, fraud and deception under the color of law by their own politicians in both the Republican and Democratic and parties, been transformed into Communists.

Another thing to remember, Karl Marx in creating the Communist Manifesto designed these planks AS A TEST to determine whether a society has become communist or not. If they are all in effect and in force, then the people ARE practicing communists.

Communism, by any other name is still communism, and is VERY VERY destructive to the individual and to the society!!

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are…

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State “income” taxes. We call it “paying your fair share”.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc…).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver’s licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read “controlled or subsidized” rather than “owned”… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920’s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. Americans are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, but are actually “government force-tax-funded schools ” Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education” . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like “majority rules”, and “pay your fair share”. WHERE are the words “fair share” in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is “fair share” even suggested !! The philosophical concept of “fair share” comes from the Communist maxim, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. … America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC … Teaching ourselves and others how to “fish” to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be “needy”… Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

Do changing words, change the end result? … By using different words, is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the united States of America?????

The people (politicians) who believe in the SOCIALISTIC and COMMUNISTIC concepts, especially those who pass more and more laws implementing these slavery ideas, are traitors to their oath of office and to the Constitution of the united States of America… KNOW YOUR ENEMY …Remove the enemy from within and from among us.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN, the only political party in America that still firmly supports and diligently abides by the Constitution of the united States of America.